Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
yeah, yeah, yeahSo, the rule of law (or words) means nothing to you?Another good reason I would vote for Biden.
View attachment 308137
You agree with him that manufacturers of firearms that are used in violence should be sued?
Let's see how it works out for the Newtown group. I don't know if it would put any real pressure on the gun manufacturers to stop selling civilians war guns or not.yeah, yeah, yeahSo, the rule of law (or words) means nothing to you?Another good reason I would vote for Biden.
View attachment 308137
You agree with him that manufacturers of firearms that are used in violence should be sued?
Well, it's Connecticut, Lucy. You wouldn't understand.yeah, yeah, yeahSo, the rule of law (or words) means nothing to you?Another good reason I would vote for Biden.
View attachment 308137
You agree with him that manufacturers of firearms that are used in violence should be sued?
If we go on this thinking then why should not auto manufacturers be sued when an auto is used by a drink driver and/or a terrorist that results in peoples getting killed? The entire thing is ridiculous, it's not the gun manufacturers fault just like it's not the auto manufacturers fault.
Ni, you don't- you got that part right.No, I don't, and I fully understand what irony means.
Attorneys name both in most civil suits. It's not an either/or proposition. I know; I typed a gazillion of them to finance my way through school.Let's see how it works out for the Newtown group. I don't know if it would put any real pressure on the gun manufacturers to stop selling civilians war guns or not.yeah, yeah, yeahSo, the rule of law (or words) means nothing to you?Another good reason I would vote for Biden.
View attachment 308137
You agree with him that manufacturers of firearms that are used in violence should be sued?
and when a drunk driver kills someone, should the family of the deceased sue the company that made the car, the bartender that served him, or the brewery that made the liquor?
In both cases, suing the person responsible for the death makes more sense.
LOL- war guns?Let's see how it works out for the Newtown group. I don't know if it would put any real pressure on the gun manufacturers to stop selling civilians war guns or not.
Explain it, then, professor.Ni, you don't- you got that part right.No, I don't, and I fully understand what irony means.
Well, it's Connecticut, Lucy. You wouldn't understand.yeah, yeah, yeahSo, the rule of law (or words) means nothing to you?Another good reason I would vote for Biden.
View attachment 308137
You agree with him that manufacturers of firearms that are used in violence should be sued?
If we go on this thinking then why should not auto manufacturers be sued when an auto is used by a drink driver and/or a terrorist that results in peoples getting killed? The entire thing is ridiculous, it's not the gun manufacturers fault just like it's not the auto manufacturers fault.
Another good reason I would vote for Biden. Don't know what happened to his support. Early days, though.
Attorneys name both in most civil suits. It's not an either/or proposition. I know; I typed a gazillion of them to finance my way through school.Let's see how it works out for the Newtown group. I don't know if it would put any real pressure on the gun manufacturers to stop selling civilians war guns or not.
You agree with him that manufacturers of firearms that are used in violence should be sued?
and when a drunk driver kills someone, should the family of the deceased sue the company that made the car, the bartender that served him, or the brewery that made the liquor?
In both cases, suing the person responsible for the death makes more sense.
Usually the manufacturer is quickly thrown out of the suit, but they always try it. This time, the Newtown group is being given a shot. If manufacturers are not held accountable for mass marketing of war weapons to untrained civilians, it is never going to stop. Maybe this approach would work better than the outlaw legislation some of the pols are pushing for. Hitting a company in the wallet usually has the most immediate effect, don't you think?
Hitting a company in the wallet usually has the most immediate effect, don't you think?
Attorneys name both in most civil suits. It's not an either/or proposition. I know; I typed a gazillion of them to finance my way through school.Let's see how it works out for the Newtown group. I don't know if it would put any real pressure on the gun manufacturers to stop selling civilians war guns or not.
You agree with him that manufacturers of firearms that are used in violence should be sued?
and when a drunk driver kills someone, should the family of the deceased sue the company that made the car, the bartender that served him, or the brewery that made the liquor?
In both cases, suing the person responsible for the death makes more sense.
Usually the manufacturer is quickly thrown out of the suit, but they always try it. This time, the Newtown group is being given a shot. If manufacturers are not held accountable for mass marketing of war weapons to untrained civilians, it is never going to stop. Maybe this approach would work better than the outlaw legislation some of the pols are pushing for. Hitting a company in the wallet usually has the most immediate effect, don't you think?
Well, it's Connecticut, Lucy. You wouldn't understand.yeah, yeah, yeahSo, the rule of law (or words) means nothing to you?Another good reason I would vote for Biden.
View attachment 308137
You agree with him that manufacturers of firearms that are used in violence should be sued?
If we go on this thinking then why should not auto manufacturers be sued when an auto is used by a drink driver and/or a terrorist that results in peoples getting killed? The entire thing is ridiculous, it's not the gun manufacturers fault just like it's not the auto manufacturers fault.
Attorneys name both in most civil suits. It's not an either/or proposition. I know; I typed a gazillion of them to finance my way through school.Let's see how it works out for the Newtown group. I don't know if it would put any real pressure on the gun manufacturers to stop selling civilians war guns or not.yeah, yeah, yeah
View attachment 308137
You agree with him that manufacturers of firearms that are used in violence should be sued?
and when a drunk driver kills someone, should the family of the deceased sue the company that made the car, the bartender that served him, or the brewery that made the liquor?
In both cases, suing the person responsible for the death makes more sense.
Usually the manufacturer is quickly thrown out of the suit, but they always try it. This time, the Newtown group is being given a shot. If manufacturers are not held accountable for mass marketing of war weapons to untrained civilians, it is never going to stop. Maybe this approach would work better than the outlaw legislation some of the pols are pushing for. Hitting a company in the wallet usually has the most immediate effect, don't you think?
The second you allow manufacturers to be sued for the criminal misuse of their products, the result will be nothing is made anymore.
No knives, cars, refrigerators, ovens, stoves, hammers, you name it. If some loon can figure out how to illegally use it, there will be no more made.
Think before you post.
Another good reason I would vote for Biden. Don't know what happened to his support. Early days, though.
Yes, guns are bad. Billionaires are bad. So why are billionaires pushing gun control?
If you are an old lady, maybe you need physical harm to happen to you by a younger person. Most people change their minds when this happens. Or if they live in a changing neighborhood as one example, take a beating in their economic situation to move elsewhere.Another good reason I would vote for Biden. Don't know what happened to his support. Early days, though.
Well, perhaps you do know, then, what an extremely litigious bunch they are.Well, it's Connecticut, Lucy. You wouldn't understand.
You agree with him that manufacturers of firearms that are used in violence should be sued?
If we go on this thinking then why should not auto manufacturers be sued when an auto is used by a drink driver and/or a terrorist that results in peoples getting killed? The entire thing is ridiculous, it's not the gun manufacturers fault just like it's not the auto manufacturers fault.
I have several friends in Greenwich, Connecticut.
Thanks for the warm wishes.If you are an old lady, maybe you need physical harm to happen to you by a younger person. Most people change their minds when this happens. Or if they live in a changing neighborhood as one example, take a beating in their economic situation to move elsewhere.Another good reason I would vote for Biden. Don't know what happened to his support. Early days, though.
I believe the Newtown suit is about their advertising, not the guns' capabilities.Attorneys name both in most civil suits. It's not an either/or proposition. I know; I typed a gazillion of them to finance my way through school.Let's see how it works out for the Newtown group. I don't know if it would put any real pressure on the gun manufacturers to stop selling civilians war guns or not.yeah, yeah, yeah
View attachment 308137
You agree with him that manufacturers of firearms that are used in violence should be sued?
and when a drunk driver kills someone, should the family of the deceased sue the company that made the car, the bartender that served him, or the brewery that made the liquor?
In both cases, suing the person responsible for the death makes more sense.
Usually the manufacturer is quickly thrown out of the suit, but they always try it. This time, the Newtown group is being given a shot. If manufacturers are not held accountable for mass marketing of war weapons to untrained civilians, it is never going to stop. Maybe this approach would work better than the outlaw legislation some of the pols are pushing for. Hitting a company in the wallet usually has the most immediate effect, don't you think?
The second you allow manufacturers to be sued for the criminal misuse of their products, the result will be nothing is made anymore.
No knives, cars, refrigerators, ovens, stoves, hammers, you name it. If some loon can figure out how to illegally use it, there will be no more made.
Think before you post.
I believe the Newtown suit is about their advertising, not the guns' capabilities.Attorneys name both in most civil suits. It's not an either/or proposition. I know; I typed a gazillion of them to finance my way through school.Let's see how it works out for the Newtown group. I don't know if it would put any real pressure on the gun manufacturers to stop selling civilians war guns or not.You agree with him that manufacturers of firearms that are used in violence should be sued?
and when a drunk driver kills someone, should the family of the deceased sue the company that made the car, the bartender that served him, or the brewery that made the liquor?
In both cases, suing the person responsible for the death makes more sense.
Usually the manufacturer is quickly thrown out of the suit, but they always try it. This time, the Newtown group is being given a shot. If manufacturers are not held accountable for mass marketing of war weapons to untrained civilians, it is never going to stop. Maybe this approach would work better than the outlaw legislation some of the pols are pushing for. Hitting a company in the wallet usually has the most immediate effect, don't you think?
The second you allow manufacturers to be sued for the criminal misuse of their products, the result will be nothing is made anymore.
No knives, cars, refrigerators, ovens, stoves, hammers, you name it. If some loon can figure out how to illegally use it, there will be no more made.
Think before you post.
Attorneys name both in most civil suits. It's not an either/or proposition. I know; I typed a gazillion of them to finance my way through school.Let's see how it works out for the Newtown group. I don't know if it would put any real pressure on the gun manufacturers to stop selling civilians war guns or not.
You agree with him that manufacturers of firearms that are used in violence should be sued?
and when a drunk driver kills someone, should the family of the deceased sue the company that made the car, the bartender that served him, or the brewery that made the liquor?
In both cases, suing the person responsible for the death makes more sense.
Usually the manufacturer is quickly thrown out of the suit, but they always try it. This time, the Newtown group is being given a shot. If manufacturers are not held accountable for mass marketing of war weapons to untrained civilians, it is never going to stop. Maybe this approach would work better than the outlaw legislation some of the pols are pushing for. Hitting a company in the wallet usually has the most immediate effect, don't you think?
