Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturers.

Should crime victims be able to sue gun manufacturers?


  • Total voters
    108
That's funny. None of the male gun owners on the board need guns to prove their manhood either, but they need them for self defense. You fail to grasp that concept. Self defense.


Tell the truth.....You also sleep under your bed clutching your guns......just in case....LOL
 
BTW are you actually claiming republicans don't abort pregnancies..?
....and, of course, all right wingers on here have adopted dozen of kids from mothers who wanted an abortion, because...well, because they "care"....and when these kids are older, they want to send them to Iraq....LOL
More mindless nonsense from the village useful idiot.
 
It does not surprise me that you do not care if someone takes you to task for supporting your positions with nothing but willful ignorance and lies.


Fine......just a few questions:

True or False about the U.S. having more guns than actual people.
True or False about the U.S. having more gun deaths than any industrialized country
True or False about U.S. gun manufacturers having the ONLY law to protect them from being sued
True or False about the U.S. having more people in prison over murder and homicide charges
True or False about the U.S. having more children killed by guns than anywhere else on this planet.
 
So tell me Natalie



I always find it funny, when right wing imbeciles "assume" that I'm a woman because of my progressive values...
Not that it matters to idiots, but I'm an older, retired MALE who doesn't need guns to prove my manhood.

And we find it funny when leftwing imbeciles incorrectly assume people are into guns due to "manhood" issues. Shooting is a sport ya know.
 
And we find it funny when leftwing imbeciles incorrectly assume people are into guns due to "manhood" issues. Shooting is a sport ya know.

Well, that guy...Lanza....at Sandy Hook certainly showed how "sporting" he was, don't you think?
 
It does not surprise me that you do not care if someone takes you to task for supporting your positions with nothing but willful ignorance and lies.
Fine......just a few questions:
Sorry, junior... it's not up to me to make your points for you.
Now, tell us again about how the 1/16,000,000 guns used/not used to commit murder ratio indicates we need more gun control.
 
And we find it funny when leftwing imbeciles incorrectly assume people are into guns due to "manhood" issues. Shooting is a sport ya know.
Well, that guy...Lanza....at Sandy Hook certainly showed how "sporting" he was, don't you think?
:cuckoo:
Lanza murdered his mother and stole her guns so he could go into a gun-free zone and shoot up defenseless people
Your conclusion: This is proof we need to make it harder for the law abiding to get guns.
:cuckoo:
 
True or False about the U.S. having more guns than actual people.

False. There are around 100 million gun owners, registered gun owners. The population of the U.S. is 318.9 million.

True or False about the U.S. having more gun deaths than any industrialized country

False. Honduras has a rate of 67.18 gun deaths per 100,000 population. The U.S has 10.54 gun deaths per 100,000 population. Those figures all include homicides, suicides, and unintentional deaths related to firearms.

True or False about U.S. gun manufacturers having the ONLY law to protect them from being sued

True. Congress passed a law in 2005 protecting gun manufacturers from liability should one of their weapons be used in the commission of murder and the like.

True or False about the U.S. having more people in prison over murder and homicide charges

True in the fact there are more people incarcerated for murder/homicide, false in the fact that not all of them are committed with a gun.

True or False about the U.S. having more children killed by guns than anywhere else on this planet.

True. But how many law abiding gun owners do you see out there hunting children for sport?
 
Nat, you are a very insecure individual, what you can't debate a post, you press the funny button instead. Coward. Almost all of your threads are appeals to emotion, not appeals to fact.
 
Should liberals be held responsible for creating an environment were life doesn't matter and individuals aren't responsible for their actions and no one is disciplined for anything before it's too late? Mass shootings are due to that philosophy. Sue away.
 
And we find it funny when leftwing imbeciles incorrectly assume people are into guns due to "manhood" issues. Shooting is a sport ya know.
Well, that guy...Lanza....at Sandy Hook certainly showed how "sporting" he was, don't you think?
:cuckoo:
Lanza murdered his mother and stole her guns so he could go into a gun-free zone and shoot up defenseless people
Your conclusion: This is proof we need to make it harder for the law abiding to get guns.
:cuckoo:

Lanza was a nut.
 
Should liberals be held responsible for creating an environment were life doesn't matter and individuals aren't responsible for their actions and no one is disciplined for anything before it's too late? Mass shootings are due to that philosophy. Sue away.

Good point, I made a similar point in another thread. Some here immediately dismiss the mindset that does this shit and then attack the methodology of the crime.

Sorry, I'm more interested at what is going on out there that people do this crazy shit.
 
A suit filed by a party without standing to show a tort by the plaintiff is summarily dismissed.

Close, but not quite. A lack of standing is grounds for dismissal upon motion by a defendant. Summary judgement is something different. That's a motion that asks for judgement on legal grounds when there is no material fact in dispute between the parties.

In any event, this was not hearing on a motion for dismissal for lack of standing. Nor was it a hearing for a motion for summary judgement. So like I said....get an education so that you don't have any more accidental abuses of ideas that you don't actually understand how to apply. Neither standing nor summary judgement were questions in this particular hearing.
 
31,076? That's a bargain compared to the 765,651 abortion murders in 2010 as reported by the CDC. Are you as concerned about those innocent children too?


No nitwit......You dumb ass right wingers are so predictable......."Innocent children" are NOT being aborted. Stop listening to FOX and get a high school education.

......."Innocent children" are NOT being aborted

they're not innocent?

What crime did they commit?
 
Only fucked up, FOX watchers would call an aborted embryo "children"......BTW, how many abandoned kids have you adopted?

Third grade was far beyond the educational achievement of yours... :eusa_whistle:

Gnat; if a DNA sample is processed from one of your victims, will it come back as ?

  • dog
  • turnip
  • plastic

At 6 weeks gestation, a human baby has

  • a functioning heart
  • a functioning brain
  • Both heart and brain
  • Hillary says that they are just blobs and Jews are rodents
Gnat, it's true that you're stupid, and patently evil, but hey, at least you lack anything approaching an education. :thup:

gnat

perfect nickname
 
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

nat,
I would be sympathetic to your argument but I believe it should be more like a car, you want one insure it... It is about personal responsibility... You take responsibility for the gun until you report it stolen...

Look at Sandy Hook situation, this woman had a small arsenal in her basement... No lock or gun safe with a son who was very mentally unstable...

Simple insurance would at least forced the woman to have proper security or pay very large premiums...

She paid with her life but her gross negligence cost so many more... Insurance company would pay out in this case...

What's wrong with that... Government just regulate the insurance business like they do today... Have a gun you need the right insurance(gun size, CCC, training...), your choice, your price. Government can keep away from any intrusive regulation.

What you think?
 

Forum List

Back
Top