Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturers.

[Crixus]

EIGHTEEN sub-machine guns confiscated in the UK! Ohhh!

We take you now to Los Angeles:


Hundreds Of Military-Grade Machine Guns, Ammunition Seized In Fontana

With Durant’s consent, the officers searched the storage units and found several illegal AK47’s.

With a search warrant and a more thorough search of the storage units, more than 300 firearms, military-grade machine guns, scrap parts to make illegal weapons and over 20,000 rounds of ammunition of various caliber were found.

REPEATING


President Clinton will nominate a fascist scumbag to SCOTUS who will quickly discover that Americans are slaves who do not the have the right to carry slingshots let alone firearms.

We will them depend on the Mexican Mafia to keep us supplied with firearms and ammunitions.

.

Rubes like you are why I say the gun manufacturers and retailers of America are probably burning candles in the hopes of a Clinton presidency.

After all, the OBAMAZ CUMMIN FER YER GUNZ fearmongering was one of the most successful marketing campaigns in the gun makers' history. They are probably hoping to continue that success with a HITLEREEZ CUMMIN FER YER GUNZ follow-up stratagem. They know you rubes have memories like that of goldfish and will get back in the line for the same piss over and over and over and over again.

I would not be surprised if the gun makers were making dark money donations to her campaign.

I sold 500 rounds of .22 long rifle for 150 bucks. Obama bought me gun parts. Thanks Barry o.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

He could have walked into that classroom and killed those children with a chef's knife. You're the one missing the point. The people that make weapons are not responsible for the crimes committed by maniacs.

Really ????? REALLY????

Are you suggesting that an automatic weapon is JUST AS lethal as a chef's knife???

It was reported that Lanza fired 150 rounds in 5 minutes.

None of the RWNJ arguments are valid.

 

[Crixus]

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.

You know, since you mention it, the car with the keys in it, didn't that happen? But yeah, agree with this 100%. I make my guns inert.

As do I. My first line of defense is our dog, she will alert us in plenty of time to lock and load.

So every time your dog barks you go to your gun safe, unlock it, get you gun, load it then go to see what Fido is barking at?

Not buying it

You most likely get up and say "Shut up, Fido" and then look out the door.

Nope. I don't have any nutty kids, so one of my Ar's is by my bed. When I'm working the property it comes with, but it is typically loaded. When I'm out in town I have a Glock 17 which is loaded 24-7.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Of course, you right wingers and gun rights proponents are missing the point.....either purposefully or by stupidity. At Sandy Hook, first graders were not "just killed" but torn into pieces by a maniac with a gun intended to be used in military combat..Such guns should NOT be sold to common citizens. The only purpose to sell such guns are either to kill as many people in the shortest number of minutes....OR to satisfy the "machismo" of morons.i

Those little babies were literally torn in two and unrecognizable as human children.

Why do civilians need that gun and those magazines?

 

[kaz]

Guns are manufactured virtually SOLELY for the purpose of killing....

You are one sick fuck. No, the primary use of guns is to not kill. And not be killed.

Unless you're talking about hunting. You a vegetarian? Or you just have someone else slaughter your animals for you before someone else cuts them up or shreds them and serves them on a bun to you?

 

[nat4900]

We can legally obtain surface to air missiles, so your argument fails the logic test.

Well, you're "right"........Somewhere in the 2nd amendment the founding fathers put in something about surface to air missiles, tanks, and (I actually saw a manufacturer advertising these) FLAME THROWERS like those used during the Viet Nam debacle......Go for it right wingers..

 

[Dale Smith]

He could have walked into that classroom and killed those children with a chef's knife. You're the one missing the point. The people that make weapons are not responsible for the crimes committed by maniacs.

Really ????? REALLY????

Are you suggesting that an automatic weapon is JUST AS lethal as a chef's knife???

It was reported that Lanza fired 150 rounds in 5 minutes.

None of the RWNJ arguments are valid.

Reporting and what reality is are two very different things. I refer to it as Sandy Hoax......

 

[kaz]

He could have walked into that classroom and killed those children with a chef's knife. You're the one missing the point. The people that make weapons are not responsible for the crimes committed by maniacs.

Really ????? REALLY????

Are you suggesting that an automatic weapon is JUST AS lethal as a chef's knife???

It was reported that Lanza fired 150 rounds in 5 minutes.

None of the RWNJ arguments are valid.

Yes, not having guns to stop him made the victims so much safer

 

[Valerie]

Gun companies do have special legal protections against liability that very few other industries enjoy.

To see what she's getting at, you have to back up 10 years. Clinton is talking about a 2005 law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA — a law she wants to repeal as part of her gun control proposals.


Lawmakers passed that law in response to a spate of lawsuits that cities filed against the gun industry in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Those lawsuits often claimed gun-makers or sellers were engaging in "negligent marketing" or creating a "public nuisance."


In 2000, for example, New York City joined 30 counties and cities in suing gun manufacturers, saying manufacturers should have been making their products safer and also better tracking where their products were sold. Manufacturers, one argument at the time went, should stop supplying stores that sell a lot of guns that end up being used in crimes.


In response to these lawsuits, the NRA pushed for the law, which passed in 2005 with support from both Republicans and Democrats. Then-Sen. Clinton voted against it; her current Democratic opponent, Bernie Sanders, voted for it.

FACT CHECK: Are Gun-Makers 'Totally Free Of Liability For Their Behavior'?

15 U.S. Code § 7901 - Findings; purposes

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ92/html/PLAW-109publ92.htm

 

[hadit]

There is nothing in the product gun manufacturers make that causes addiction. Your argument is false.

Have you read 2AGuy's posts recently? He frankly makes a crack addict going through withdrawls look sedate when you suggest he can't have a gun.

A gun is just a gun, it has no hypnotic powers.

 

[nat4900]

Why? Why shouldn't citizens be able to have the same weapons their government has? ESPECIALLY when they have a second amendment.

Want to have the same weapons as government based on the 2nd amendment????
.......THEN join a "militia" and expect to be "well regulated"

 

[Valerie]

Clinton "is not totally off base," said John Goldberg, a professor at Harvard Law School and specialist in tort law. He said Congress was particularly "aggressive" in granting the gun industry this legal shield.

"Congress has rarely acted to bar the adoption by courts of particular theories of liability against a particular class of potential defendants, especially when that form of liability has not yet been recognized by the courts," he said.

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.





Gun-rights advocates have also argued that suing a gun company for crimes committed with its products is akin to suing a car company for drunken-driving fatalities.

But the issues at hand are more complex, say some legal scholars.

"It's more like — are you a bartender and do you keep on pouring drinks for someone?" as Fordham University law professor Saul Cornell told NPR. That might be a better way to think about whether manufacturers shouldn't supply certain stores, he says.

For an example of how this plays out, look at Adames v. Beretta. In this case, a 13-year-old boy removed the clip from his father's Beretta handgun, believing that made the gun safe, and then accidentally shot his 13-year-old friend. The victim's family sued Beretta, saying the company could have made the pistol safer and provided more warnings, according to SCOTUSBlog. Citing the PLCAA, the Illinois Supreme Court dismissed Adames' claims, and the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately refused to hear the case.

Victims of gun crimes like the Adames family may or may not have good cases, but PLCAA opponents say plaintiffs should at least be heard in court.




^ bingo

 

[Rustic]

Inevitably, gun proponents and the NRA will claim that the latest ruling allowing families of the Sandy Hook massacre of children, is a ridiculous ruling.....They will follow up with various scenarios that were someone to be killed by a knife or a rope, that knives and rope manufacturers could ALSO be sued....but when making such comparisons they show both their prejudices and downright stupidity.

Guns are manufactured virtually SOLELY for the purpose of killing....whereas knives or ropes have much different purposes and the flooding of some high-crime areas with weapons whose main purpose is killing of maiming is totally unacceptable.

This ruling is a small but necessary first step toward restoring sanity. The Sandy Hook massacre could not have been as lethal with knives or ropes. Let us join the rest of the sane, and progressive world community where those weapons (mostly made for military purposes) do NOT make their way into deranged and evil hands.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

A boy witness is recorded telling officers how a “bad man” suddenly came into his class in “army clothes” and firing a “bazooka”. The pupil saw his teacher get shot and knew she was dead.


Lanza fired at the youngster time and again but hit only the toy animal he was clutching. The boy “ran and ran” past the bloodied body of his headteacher.

Here's a birthday card to Adam from his daddy. Needless to say, all those little kids don't get birthday cards any more.

For those who think Adam came from poor circumstances
.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Clinton "is not totally off base," said John Goldberg, a professor at Harvard Law School and specialist in tort law. He said Congress was particularly "aggressive" in granting the gun industry this legal shield.

"Congress has rarely acted to bar the adoption by courts of particular theories of liability against a particular class of potential defendants, especially when that form of liability has not yet been recognized by the courts," he said.

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.





Gun-rights advocates have also argued that suing a gun company for crimes committed with its products is akin to suing a car company for drunken-driving fatalities.

But the issues at hand are more complex, say some legal scholars.

"It's more like — are you a bartender and do you keep on pouring drinks for someone?" as Fordham University law professor Saul Cornell told NPR. That might be a better way to think about whether manufacturers shouldn't supply certain stores, he says.

For an example of how this plays out, look at Adames v. Beretta. In this case, a 13-year-old boy removed the clip from his father's Beretta handgun, believing that made the gun safe, and then accidentally shot his 13-year-old friend. The victim's family sued Beretta, saying the company could have made the pistol safer and provided more warnings, according to SCOTUSBlog. Citing the PLCAA, the Illinois Supreme Court dismissed Adames' claims, and the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately refused to hear the case.

Victims of gun crimes like the Adames family may or may not have good cases, but PLCAA opponents say plaintiffs should at least be heard in court.

Of course.

Ambulance chasing-lawyers LOVE to make money.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Guns are manufactured virtually SOLELY for the purpose of killing....

You are one sick fuck. No, the primary use of guns is to not kill. And not be killed.

Unless you're talking about hunting. You a vegetarian? Or you just have someone else slaughter your animals for you before someone else cuts them up or shreds them and serves them on a bun to you?

IOW, you agree with what he wrote -

The ONLY purpose of a gun is to kill.

 

[Rustic]

 

[Valerie]

it also exists in the minds of those who blindly put corporate profits over concerns for public safety.

 

[Rustic]

Guns are manufactured virtually SOLELY for the purpose of killing....

You are one sick fuck. No, the primary use of guns is to not kill. And not be killed.

Unless you're talking about hunting. You a vegetarian? Or you just have someone else slaughter your animals for you before someone else cuts them up or shreds them and serves them on a bun to you?

IOW, you agree with what he wrote -

The ONLY purpose of a gun is to kill.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Why? Why shouldn't citizens be able to have the same weapons their government has? ESPECIALLY when they have a second amendment.

Want to have the same weapons as government based on the 2nd amendment????
.......THEN join a "militia" and expect to be "well regulated"

Never a requirement.