Law Suit By Sandy Hook Parents Against Remington Arms Dismissed

[OKTexas]

Just heard on the news, this illegal law suit has been dismissed. Parents say they will appeal, such a waste of money, their gonna lose. Remington made a legal product and is not responsible for damages. Firearms manufactures are protected by law against these unjust suits.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Suing Remington because someone shot somebody using a Remington gun, is no different from suing Ford because someone ran over somebody using one of their cars.

Well, there is one difference. The right to own and carry one of Remington's guns is constitutionally protected, no govt can make a law against it. The right to own and drive a Ford is not.

 

[GLASNOST]

Suing Remington because someone shot somebody using a Remington gun, is no different from suing Ford because someone ran over somebody using one of their cars.

Well, there is one difference. The right to own and carry one of Remington's guns is constitutionally protected, no govt can make a law against it. The right to own and drive a Ford is not.

What if the Ford was wielded as a weapon of purpose .... taken aim and pulled accelerator.

 

[OKTexas]

Suing Remington because someone shot somebody using a Remington gun, is no different from suing Ford because someone ran over somebody using one of their cars.

Well, there is one difference. The right to own and carry one of Remington's guns is constitutionally protected, no govt can make a law against it. The right to own and drive a Ford is not.

What if the Ford was wielded as a weapon of purpose .... taken aim and pulled accelerator.

Doesn't matter, Ford didn't manufacture it for the purpose of unlawfully killing people and unless someone can prove a Ford malfunction caused the injuries, they're aren't liable. Remington Arms doesn't manufacture sport utility rifles for killing people except in legal circumstances, so unless the plaintiffs can prove the injuries were caused by a weapons malfunction they are not liable either.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Suing Remington because someone shot somebody using a Remington gun, is no different from suing Ford because someone ran over somebody using one of their cars.

Well, there is one difference. The right to own and carry one of Remington's guns is constitutionally protected, no govt can make a law against it. The right to own and drive a Ford is not.

What if the Ford was wielded as a weapon of purpose .... taken aim and pulled accelerator.

So?

 

[GLASNOST]

Doesn't matter ...

It does matter.

Ford didn't manufacture it for the purpose of unlawfully killing people .......

And Remington didn't manufacture their rifles for the purpose of unlawfully killing people either.

The point remains; when it comes to large sums of money the little guy is going to fucked every time.

 

[GLASNOST]

Suing Remington because someone shot somebody using a Remington gun, is no different from suing Ford because someone ran over somebody using one of their cars.

Well, there is one difference. The right to own and carry one of Remington's guns is constitutionally protected, no govt can make a law against it. The right to own and drive a Ford is not.

What if the Ford was wielded as a weapon of purpose .... taken aim and pulled accelerator.

So?

... when it comes to large sums of money the little guy is going to fucked every time.

 

[Rustic]

Frivolous lawsuits by ignorant people, ends up costing everyone. Bastards

 

[OKTexas]

Doesn't matter ...

It does matter.

Ford didn't manufacture it for the purpose of unlawfully killing people .......

And Remington didn't manufacture their rifles for the purpose of unlawfully killing people either.

The point remains; when it comes to large sums of money the little guy is going to fucked every time.

You can't hold any manufacturer liable for a malfunctioning operator, when their legal product performs as designed. Large sums of money has nothing to do with it.

 

[GLASNOST]

Frivolous lawsuits by ignorant people, ends up costing everyone. .......

Maybe. But nothing is ever accomplished without that first step. Your complaint is about 'cost in dollars'. Others are more concerned about 'cost in lives', mostly innocent ones. SOMETHING should be done about gun violence, don't you think?

 

[FA_Q2]

Like they didn't see that coming. Don't even know why they are trying to sue.

 

[FA_Q2]

Frivolous lawsuits by ignorant people, ends up costing everyone. .......

Maybe. But nothing is ever accomplished without that first step. Your complaint is about 'cost in dollars'. Others are more concerned about 'cost in lives', mostly innocent ones. SOMETHING should be done about gun violence, don't you think?

That something is not suing manufactures because people use their produce ILLEGALLY.

 

[Rustic]

Frivolous lawsuits by ignorant people, ends up costing everyone. .......

Maybe. But nothing is ever accomplished without that first step. Your complaint is about 'cost in dollars'. Others are more concerned about 'cost in lives', mostly innocent ones. SOMETHING should be done about gun violence, don't you think?

More laws will never work, enforcement of current ones. It's really a nonissue...
2016 Real Time Death Statistics in America

 

[Vastator]

Suing Remington because someone shot somebody using a Remington gun, is no different from suing Ford because someone ran over somebody using one of their cars.

Well, there is one difference. The right to own and carry one of Remington's guns is constitutionally protected, no govt can make a law against it. The right to own and drive a Ford is not.

What if the Ford was wielded as a weapon of purpose .... taken aim and pulled accelerator.

Then the operator would be charged. Just like if he used a brick,or fist, or a gun. Did you really need the obvious pointed out? Did you blame Boeing for 9/11?

 

[Rustic]

Opera music makes me hate my ears... I'm going to sue all opera singers whenever I hear opera music.

 

[GLASNOST]

You can't hold any manufacturer liable for a malfunctioning operator, when their legal product performs as designed.

It depends upon who the manufacturers' competitors are.

Large sums of money has nothing to do with it.

It most certainly does. You don't believe that large and influential companies have an enormously better chance of suing you than you have of suing them? .... of them getting of scott-free when it's you who's suing them? And if you agree, to what do you attribute their legal successes? NOT their huge expense account?

 

[GLASNOST]

...... SOMETHING should be done about gun violence, don't you think?

That something is not suing manufactures because people use their produce ILLEGALLY.

That's not for you to say. Those who are trying to sue disagree with you. And how many of your children were killed at Sandy Hook, anyway?

... SOMETHING should be done about gun violence, don't you think?

More laws will never work, enforcement of current ones. It's really a nonissue...

Who said anything about laws. I'm sure it wasn't me. The Sandy Hook parents aren't trying to add more laws. They are trying to sue by using the laws already in existence.

 

[Vastator]

...... SOMETHING should be done about gun violence, don't you think?

That's not for you to say. Those who are trying to sue disagree with you. And how many of your children were killed at Sandy Hook, anyway?

[


Who said anything about laws. I'm sure it wasn't me. The Sandy Hook parents aren't trying to add more laws. They are trying to sue by using the laws already in existence.

All of them... It takes a village to raise a child. Remember? So by lib standards we all lost children that day.

Yeah. They trying to get rich off of a tragedy. And going after the deepest pockets they can find. Notice they aren't going after the school...

All of them... It takes a village to raise a child. Remember? So by lib standards we all lost children that day.

Yeah. They trying to get rich off of a tragedy. And going after the deepest pockets they can find. Notice they aren't going after the school...

 

[OKTexas]

You can't hold any manufacturer liable for a malfunctioning operator, when their legal product performs as designed.

It depends upon who the manufacturers' competitors are.

Large sums of money has nothing to do with it.

It most certainly does. You don't believe that large and influential companies have an enormously better chance of suing you than you have of suing them? .... of them getting of scott-free when it's you who's suing them? And if you agree, to what do you attribute their legal successes? NOT their huge expense account?

You're really brainwashed, car companies have paid billions in law suits as have many other sectors such as drug companies, cigarette companies and asbestos manufacturers. Plaintiff attorneys will take and finance the cases, why do you think you see all these ads on TV looking for plaintiffs. And no competitors have nothing to do with it either.

 

[OKTexas]

Frivolous lawsuits by ignorant people, ends up costing everyone. .......

Maybe. But nothing is ever accomplished without that first step. Your complaint is about 'cost in dollars'. Others are more concerned about 'cost in lives', mostly innocent ones. SOMETHING should be done about gun violence, don't you think?

Yep, something effective, like dealing with the fucking criminals and getting them off the streets.