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.
T
really? under what theory? how did he get the guns? HE KILLED the owner. we don't know if they were locked up and he forced her to open the safe but I will tell you something. If I have the power to KILL someone, I have the power to make them open a locked container
Well then it's hopeless? This didn't just happen all of a sudden. The kid had a history. If anyone should have known better it would have been her. It's sad, she did not deserve to die, but in the end she was the adult.
He had no "history" of violence. He was a withdrawn kid with autism. If she thought for a moment that he would KILL her, I'm sure she would have done something immediately. Hindsight is 20/20, of course.
Also, HE was an adult. He was 20 years old. You cannot just commit an adult. You have to go through court proceedings or they have to be an IMMEDIATE threat. IOW, they have to have made serious homicidal/suicidal threats.
We take car keys from good folks who drank to much. Bartenders who serve folks who drink to much and have an accident can be sued for serving them. I could see trying to sue the gun shop, but not the manufacturer. I agree hindsight is 20/20.
So you support the NRA position that any gun control is a violation of the 2nd A. and big governments effort to suppress the liberty of gun owners. It that correct?
Watch this before you answer:
Should the manufacturer of such weapons and armor be controlled, or does laissez faire rule the day?
Awesome vedio. When the shooting happened I could see 8 cope. Vato Loco was dropped with one shot kind of center mass. Good on them. So what's the point?
everyone knew he was unstable. that's why his father had nothing to do with him. but please, continue to mischaracterize him.
He had autism. Autistic kids are oftentimes "weird." That doesn't make them dangerous or violent. Why don't you post your credentials here that makes you able to make such a diagnosis.
he was dangerous. that is why his father left.
that is not what i have read
got a link
thanks
i'll try to find it. it's what i have heard.
i'm pretty sure you've heard "there was nothing anyone could do".
well, except screen people who want guns appropriately.
The family had trouble getting him help...and they tried.
Damn, it stinks that this false flag crap just won't die. Whatever. Anyway, that Lanza got the guns was his mother's fault. Had she not been killed she would be the one who should face civil action as well as criminal charges. It was HER fault the boy got the weapon. Period. A law suit against Remington won't do anything but make them charge more for guns. In the end, they will lose. It's a shame that in this country acountability in flat out gone. I'm fat and is someone else's fault, I cut my finger, it's the knife makers fault because they made the knife sharp.
Fuck you. Fuck you big mother fucking time.
She liked to hunt. HOW THE HELL IS SHE RESPONSIBLE FOR HER FUCKED UP KID?..
First, she facilitated the murder of all those children by making the gun avaliable to her sick offspring. In most states had she not been shot she would have had charges brought and rightfully so. So fuck yo, fuck you big time. She is just as guilty for those dead kids as her son.deal with it.
Yeah, that will teach her to get killed and have her gun safe keys stolen from her.
So, this nutter is saying that killing the mother, stealing the keys, then stealing the guns, makes the mom responsible? Where does this stupid logic come from? Ray, how the hell can anyone deal with such a stupid premise?
Stop making excuses for stupid. Had she lived she likely would have been prosicuted and rightfully so. It's called acountability. You don't manage your guns, you are acountable.
T
Well then it's hopeless? This didn't just happen all of a sudden. The kid had a history. If anyone should have known better it would have been her. It's sad, she did not deserve to die, but in the end she was the adult.
He had no "history" of violence. He was a withdrawn kid with autism. If she thought for a moment that he would KILL her, I'm sure she would have done something immediately. Hindsight is 20/20, of course.
Also, HE was an adult. He was 20 years old. You cannot just commit an adult. You have to go through court proceedings or they have to be an IMMEDIATE threat. IOW, they have to have made serious homicidal/suicidal threats.
We take car keys from good folks who drank to much. Bartenders who serve folks who drink to much and have an accident can be sued for serving them. I could see trying to sue the gun shop, but not the manufacturer. I agree hindsight is 20/20.
So you support the NRA position that any gun control is a violation of the 2nd A. and big governments effort to suppress the liberty of gun owners. It that correct?
Watch this before you answer:
Should the manufacturer of such weapons and armor be controlled, or does laissez faire rule the day?
Awesome vedio. When the shooting happened I could see 8 cope. Vato Loco was dropped with one shot kind of center mass. Good on them. So what's the point?
The point is obvious. Those who manufacture and sell to the public weapons used in the video and the personal body armor ought to be held responsible. These are the elements necessary to file a law suit and should apply:
- Duty - does the maker of military style weapons and armor have a duty to the general public?
- Breach, did the manufacturer provide their product to a retail or wholesale purveyor of weapons to the public?
- Was someone harmed?
I'm a guy who gets sick and tired of watching children get wheeled out in body bags because you have a fetish. I used to be one oyou wingnuts, making these same arguments.. until I realized I couldn't.
Used to be a time the NRA supported common sense gun laws. In the 1960s, when armed terrorists like the Weathermen and the Black Panthers were running amok, Republicans supported gun laws and the NRA helped write them and no one talked any crazy shit about how we needs our guns to overthrow the gummit.
You will never overthrow the government, but you are racking up a lot of preschoolers. People like you made Adam Lanza possible.
yep, let's "make America great again" by coming together on common sense gun regulations.
AR-15s were one of 18 semiautomatic weapons banned under a 1994 law that expired in 2004 despite broad public support and a drop in gun fatalities
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has unveiled new gun control laws in the wake of the deadly Oregon school shooting.
She proposes abolishing legislation that protects gun makers and dealers from being sued by shooting victims.
Mrs Clinton also vowed to use executive powers as president to expand background checks at gun shows and ban domestic abusers from purchasing guns.
The issue of gun control is a hugely divisive issue in the US.
Her announcement comes after a deadly shooting at Umqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon, last week left eight students and a teacher dead.
She told a rally in New Hampshire: "I will try every way I can to get those guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.
"We need to prevent these kinds of terrible crimes that are happening."
Hillary Clinton wants gun firms liable for shootings - BBC News
well you are right....a friend of mine came over last night who is a type 1 and he told me whats what,he has lost part of his foot...but he said most of the type 2's who do lose a foot are MOSTLY the ones who do not take care of themselves or those who just seem to get worse no matter what they do,he said thats what gets out of what his Endocrinologist told him when he was about to lose his....otherwise they usually stay intact.....Dunno, exactly. I was diagnosed about 5 years ago.how long have you been a diabetic bri?...and type 2 never lose a limb to it,but type 1's do....so she was talking type 1 and they are not all fat....Skinny people rarely get type II diabetes.
Good Lord! The point totally flew over your head, huh?
He's also wrong about Type IIs never losing a limb because of it.
so adam would have got them from someone else....Gang members and other violent criminals will continue to get weapons illegally. Your "gun control laws" target the wrong people.
Again, most gun deaths are people who live in the home where the gun is kept.... so no, we are targeting the right people.
There'd be 26 kids and teachers alive today if Nancy Lanza couldn't buy guns.
So by your logic, aerosols, gasoline, kerosene, and all flammable liquids should be banned. Along with lighters. I can turn a can of hair spray into a flamethrower in a split second and burn you alive. We also need to be rid of ink pens. I can take a well made ink pen and RAM it into your skull just as fast as shooting you, and it will kill you just as dead. Machetes must be banned as well, I could move through a room dealing fatal blows VERY QUICKLY, especially a room full of children who don't understand what is really happening. I could also use my automobile as a very effective tool to pull off a mass murder, very easily. Your argument is flawed, your Liberal logic tells you that if we rid the world of those evil guns, murders will be far too difficult for the average person to pull off. What you're missing is that the "average" person isn't who is doing these horrendous things. It's people who are not right, people who do this sort of thing will accomplish their goals regardless. The means just may be far more horrific than anything a gun could accomplish. I mean 9/11 taught us that. But being the Liberal that you are, you will never understand and are much less likely to EVER admit that you're wrong, being the social justice warriors that you are. You're on a crusade and ONLY you're opinion is the "RIGHT" opinion. Everyone else is just to stupid to see it. But they will, once you impose your will upon society everyone will see what a gun free Kumbaya utopia you've created. The fact is, murders AND mass murders will still take place even if you banned all guns. Personally I don't think I will be giving up my weapons any time soon. My personal safety depends upon me, I don't have a security detail or a cop living with me. I also just do not trust my own Government enough to allow them to be armed with assault weapons and tanks, while I have a bb gun. The founders were brilliant men. Believe it or not, society was far more violent back then and people killed each other quite often. Hell, one of our US presidents killed a man. The point is they STILL thought providing the citizens with a means to protect themselves against any who would do them harm was important. And that included ones own Government. They understood that even the system they put in place could be manipulated and the balance of power taken from the people. And look at what's happened, just that. You DO NOT have the right to force me to live in a society that YOU deem appropriate, I have a right to protect myself. I think we should divide the country in half and the liberals can have their gun free utopia. Let us know how that works out for ya.I can flip open my knife as fast as a switchblade. Cosmetic laws only serve to placate libtards for more votes. Like candy to a baby.So if someone kills someone with a knife, can they sue the knife manufacturers? Ridiculous.
Gravity knives, push buttons and stiletto knives are illegal and or controlled. Do you feel this is ridiculous too? Some guns and knives are produced for one reason and one reason alone - to kill human beings. A sane society controls things which put at risk the health and welfare of its citizens.
so adam would have got them from someone else....Gang members and other violent criminals will continue to get weapons illegally. Your "gun control laws" target the wrong people.
Again, most gun deaths are people who live in the home where the gun is kept.... so no, we are targeting the right people.
There'd be 26 kids and teachers alive today if Nancy Lanza couldn't buy guns.
T
He had no "history" of violence. He was a withdrawn kid with autism. If she thought for a moment that he would KILL her, I'm sure she would have done something immediately. Hindsight is 20/20, of course.
Also, HE was an adult. He was 20 years old. You cannot just commit an adult. You have to go through court proceedings or they have to be an IMMEDIATE threat. IOW, they have to have made serious homicidal/suicidal threats.
We take car keys from good folks who drank to much. Bartenders who serve folks who drink to much and have an accident can be sued for serving them. I could see trying to sue the gun shop, but not the manufacturer. I agree hindsight is 20/20.
So you support the NRA position that any gun control is a violation of the 2nd A. and big governments effort to suppress the liberty of gun owners. It that correct?
Watch this before you answer:
Should the manufacturer of such weapons and armor be controlled, or does laissez faire rule the day?
Awesome vedio. When the shooting happened I could see 8 cope. Vato Loco was dropped with one shot kind of center mass. Good on them. So what's the point?
The point is obvious. Those who manufacture and sell to the public weapons used in the video and the personal body armor ought to be held responsible. These are the elements necessary to file a law suit and should apply:
- Duty - does the maker of military style weapons and armor have a duty to the general public?
- Breach, did the manufacturer provide their product to a retail or wholesale purveyor of weapons to the public?
- Was someone harmed?
Using that train of thought a guy could point at about anything and say it is dangerous as sue the folks who make and sell it.
Duity, does the maker of fiberglass 6' step ladders and framing hammers have a Duity to the general public?
Breach- did the manufacturer of these items provide them to the public ?
Was some one harmed ?
Going by that, if I'm on my ladder and due to Crappy manufacturing it breaks and I fall I feel that I should be compensated. But, should I misuse the ladder and get hurt, should I be compensated even though I misused it ? Nope. That's just crazy.
You responded to the wrong poster.So by your logic, aerosols, gasoline, kerosene, and all flammable liquids should be banned. Along with lighters. I can turn a can of hair spray into a flamethrower in a split second and burn you alive. We also need to be rid of ink pens. I can take a well made ink pen and RAM it into your skull just as fast as shooting you, and it will kill you just as dead. Machetes must be banned as well, I could move through a room dealing fatal blows VERY QUICKLY, especially a room full of children who don't understand what is really happening. I could also use my automobile as a very effective tool to pull off a mass murder, very easily. Your argument is flawed, your Liberal logic tells you that if we rid the world of those evil guns, murders will be far too difficult for the average person to pull off. What you're missing is that the "average" person isn't who is doing these horrendous things. It's people who are not right, people who do this sort of thing will accomplish their goals regardless. The means just may be far more horrific than anything a gun could accomplish. I mean 9/11 taught us that. But being the Liberal that you are, you will never understand and are much less likely to EVER admit that you're wrong, being the social justice warriors that you are. You're on a crusade and ONLY you're opinion is the "RIGHT" opinion. Everyone else is just to stupid to see it. But they will, once you impose your will upon society everyone will see what a gun free Kumbaya utopia you've created. The fact is, murders AND mass murders will still take place even if you banned all guns. Personally I don't think I will be giving up my weapons any time soon. My personal safety depends upon me, I don't have a security detail or a cop living with me. I also just do not trust my own Government enough to allow them to be armed with assault weapons and tanks, while I have a bb gun. The founders were brilliant men. Believe it or not, society was far more violent back then and people killed each other quite often. Hell, one of our US presidents killed a man. The point is they STILL thought providing the citizens with a means to protect themselves against any who would do them harm was important. And that included ones own Government. They understood that even the system they put in place could be manipulated and the balance of power taken from the people. And look at what's happened, just that. You DO NOT have the right to force me to live in a society that YOU deem appropriate, I have a right to protect myself. I think we should divide the country in half and the liberals can have their gun free utopia. Let us know how that works out for ya.I can flip open my knife as fast as a switchblade. Cosmetic laws only serve to placate libtards for more votes. Like candy to a baby.So if someone kills someone with a knife, can they sue the knife manufacturers? Ridiculous.
Gravity knives, push buttons and stiletto knives are illegal and or controlled. Do you feel this is ridiculous too? Some guns and knives are produced for one reason and one reason alone - to kill human beings. A sane society controls things which put at risk the health and welfare of its citizens.
It was a good argument anyway!I did, I'm sorry. I'm new. I was trying to get to that stupid liberal, and I am to stupid to know how. Ha! So much for my argument.
There is nothing in the product gun manufacturers make that causes addiction. Your argument is false.I'm sure the ultimate goal here is to try to put gun manufacturers out of business.
Yes, yes, it is. or at least change the way they do business.
Let's look back at the tobacco companies. What we found out through the tobacco lawsuit was that the tobacco industry was intentionally increasing nicotine levels in cigarettes to make them more addictive and marketing the product intentionally to teens.
The gun industry does the same thing, except they hike addiction to fear instead of nicotine.
You see, the gun industry made a decision, when hunting started to decline as a sport in this country, to market their products to homeowners. If a study from the CDC found a gun in the home was 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy, they got all funding for gun studies cut.
they sold bigger guns to bad people so other people would be scared and want more guns, too.
Now, i think that the Sandy Hook case might be weak because Nancy Lanza was only moderately crazy, as opposed to her son, who was completely around the bend.
The owner of the store from which she bought the gun was a Bush Master employee? Ya learn something new every day.Idiot.
Nothing we can do would have stopped what happened. If any of those parents think that the way to end their suffering is to take away the rights of others, then they deserve to suffer. Mostly, they are looking to cash in.
Bush Master, which was owned by the Cerberus group, was the ones who were "profiteering" here. They took a weapon designed for a battlefield and sold it to a mentally unstable woman who was unable to control her mentally unstable son. They didn't say, "How do we keep a Nancy Lanza from getting a gun", they saw Nancy Lanza and people like her as a key market.
Only 22% of households own guns. Most of them buy one gun they put in a closet and almost never use. That's not the gun industries key market. Their key market is people who are all scared of darkies and teh government and want more and more guns. The fact most of these people are batshit crazy makes shooting incidents inevitable. But that's who the gun industry markets to.
Fuck you. Fuck you big mother fucking time.
She liked to hunt. HOW THE HELL IS SHE RESPONSIBLE FOR HER FUCKED UP KID?..
First, she facilitated the murder of all those children by making the gun avaliable to her sick offspring. In most states had she not been shot she would have had charges brought and rightfully so. So fuck yo, fuck you big time. She is just as guilty for those dead kids as her son.deal with it.
Yeah, that will teach her to get killed and have her gun safe keys stolen from her.
So, this nutter is saying that killing the mother, stealing the keys, then stealing the guns, makes the mom responsible? Where does this stupid logic come from? Ray, how the hell can anyone deal with such a stupid premise?
Stop making excuses for stupid. Had she lived she likely would have been prosicuted and rightfully so. It's called acountability. You don't manage your guns, you are acountable.
So if you have your car hijacked, and the person runs it into a crowd of people, you are responsible?
You are dumber than dirt.
Do you have a link that she was "crazy" as you keep claiming? Now I asked before, and you still haven't produced any evidence that she was crazy.
Prepper = Crazy.
No, criminals will still be able to get guns, silly boy.
Again, not the "criminals" I'm worried about, as most gun deaths are regular folks who just had a really bad day.
You STILL haven't cited the language in the constitution that gives congress authority to restrict the acquisition and possession of arms by the people of the states.
I don't have to, as they already do so and have for decades.
For what?
Profiting off of death and misery...
First, she facilitated the murder of all those children by making the gun avaliable to her sick offspring. In most states had she not been shot she would have had charges brought and rightfully so. So fuck yo, fuck you big time. She is just as guilty for those dead kids as her son.deal with it.
Yeah, that will teach her to get killed and have her gun safe keys stolen from her.
So, this nutter is saying that killing the mother, stealing the keys, then stealing the guns, makes the mom responsible? Where does this stupid logic come from? Ray, how the hell can anyone deal with such a stupid premise?
Stop making excuses for stupid. Had she lived she likely would have been prosicuted and rightfully so. It's called acountability. You don't manage your guns, you are acountable.
So if you have your car hijacked, and the person runs it into a crowd of people, you are responsible?
You are dumber than dirt.
If you leave your car running and someone takes it you are culpable. If you do not secure a firearm, and it too is taken you are culpable too. If you are carjacked you are not culpable, if your guns are stored with a gun lock, or in a gun safe you are not culpable. It's really so simple even dirt would comprehend.
Federal Assault Weapons Ban Expires
September 13, 2004 at 12:00 AM EDT
JIM LEHRER: Now, the assault weapons ban. The ten-year-old law expires at midnight tonight. It outlaws 19 types of military- style semiautomatic assault weapons, as well as ammunition clips holding more than ten rounds.
Republican congressional leaders declined to bring reauthorizing legislation to the floor for debate or vote, saying there were not enough votes to pass it.
We get reaction to the end of the ban now from two very different perspectives. Gil Kerlikowske is chief of the Seattle Police Department. Wayne LaPierre is executive vice president and chief executive officer of the National Rifle Association. Chief Kerlikowske, first, what is your reading of what the impact of the failure to extend this ban is going to be?
GIL KERLIKOWSKE: Well, I think it sends a terrible signal to America’s law enforcement officers. This was a ban that ten years ago was put into place because of chiefs and sheriffs and the legitimate organizations that represent line officers and deputies.
I think it also sends a terrible message to America’s communities. The last thing we need are more military-style assault weapons on the streets of this country.
JIM LEHRER: Is there any question in your mind, Chief, that the lifting of the ban will in fact cause that to happen? There will be more of these weapons going on the streets?
GIL KERLIKOWSKE: There’s no question that there will be more weapons on the streets. Right now, the companies are taking orders in advance of the sunset provision.
We know that people will buy them and that unfortunately they will get stolen from their homes and out of their cars. And they are going to proliferate on our streets.
JIM LEHRER: And the end result of that proliferation would be what in your opinion?
GIL KERLIKOWSKE: A couple of things: One is that our law enforcement officers, my officers in Seattle, the others around this country, face enough danger right now.
They do not need to face the additional danger of additional weapons. We also know that when the family gun becomes an assault weapon, then that’s the gun that’s going to be stolen and will get out on our streets.
Federal Assault Weapons Ban Expires
First, she facilitated the murder of all those children by making the gun avaliable to her sick offspring. In most states had she not been shot she would have had charges brought and rightfully so. So fuck yo, fuck you big time. She is just as guilty for those dead kids as her son.deal with it.
Yeah, that will teach her to get killed and have her gun safe keys stolen from her.
So, this nutter is saying that killing the mother, stealing the keys, then stealing the guns, makes the mom responsible? Where does this stupid logic come from? Ray, how the hell can anyone deal with such a stupid premise?
Stop making excuses for stupid. Had she lived she likely would have been prosicuted and rightfully so. It's called acountability. You don't manage your guns, you are acountable.
So if you have your car hijacked, and the person runs it into a crowd of people, you are responsible?
You are dumber than dirt.
If you leave your car running and someone takes it you are culpable. If you do not secure a firearm, and it too is taken you are culpable too. If you are carjacked you are not culpable, if your guns are stored with a gun lock, or in a gun safe you are not culpable. It's really so simple even dirt would comprehend.
