Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturers.

[Rustic]

forks, knives, baseball bats, hand guns, hunting rifles, etc, all have other legal purposes.

there is no other legal purpose for assault weapons than deadly assault.

certain types of weapons should require higher regulation of who can own them and for what lawful purpose.

whoever applies for a legit lawful purpose should be required to achieve certain high standards of training, etc...

You don't even know what a so called "assault weapon" is...
And Ar15 is nothing more than just a sporting rifle. dumbass

Get your head out of your ass and educate yourself

 

[TNHarley]

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

Says the cankles supporter

 

[kwc57]

If I get hit by a drunk driver, you goddamn right I am about to sue Jim Beam and chevy. Their SOLE purposes are to be driven and get drunk.

Ah but it isn't the purpose that they (drinking and driving) be done TOGETHER.

But let's say I own a gun shop. Right outside of Chicago. And my gun shop sells a LOT of guns. Straw buyers, gang bangers everybody knows where to get guns. And the gun manufacturers know of my reputation and they keep selling me guns.

Should that be stopped by suing the gun manufacturers?

How the hell would a gun manufacturer 5 states over have any idea who you are selling guns to in Chicago? Do you think the cattle rancher knows who is eating his steak at your restaurant? What is it with liberals and a general lack of logic?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

They're getting sued for making a product that works???

Only in Liberalland

 

[nat4900]

Given right wingers' "logic", is there ANY reason why someone could not sell an atomic bomb?
If when the 2nd amendment was written we were talking about a militia with muskets and THAT is now being interpreted as legally owning an AR-15 to whomever wants it......then why NOT a nuclear bomb?

Puerile. Grow up.

Actually, I HAVE grown up from the "need" to feel more like a man when I have guns around the house....

Why are you right wingers so set against Iran having a nuclear weapon.....especially if their "constitution" allows them to purchase one from whomever wants to sell them one?

 

[ChrisL]

You know, all of these measures are definitely going to deter criminals from getting guns because . . . criminals follow laws, and once you make a law, of course there is NO way around it. Lol.

 

[kwc57]

These lawsuits are being allowed because anti-gun people know they can at least slow down the gun manufacturing industry. They hope they can crush it. The only thing they succeed at is scaring small manufacturers out of business which only leaves the bigger ones who can afford the lawsuits.

Really? I believe if you check, you'll see that gun sales go up every time liberals starting frothing about control.

 

[Rustic]

Given right wingers' "logic", is there ANY reason why someone could not sell an atomic bomb?
If when the 2nd amendment was written we were talking about a militia with muskets and THAT is now being interpreted as legally owning an AR-15 to whomever wants it......then why NOT a nuclear bomb?

Puerile. Grow up.

Actually, I HAVE grown up from the "need" to feel more like a man when I have guns around the house....

Why are you right wingers so set against Iran having a nuclear weapon.....especially if their "constitution" allows them to purchase one from whomever wants to sell them one?

 

[Rustic]

 

[ChrisL]

You know with background checks, of course a criminal wouldn't think of getting a gun without going through a background check first, and, of course, when he takes the LEGAL route to obtain his weapon that he plans to commit crimes with . . . we want to make it more expensive for him to so. Outlawing particular guns are definitely going to help deter criminals from getting those guns because they wouldn't THINK of breaking a law.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

There is no other legal purpose for assault weapons than massive deadly assault.

Please describe an "assault weapon", and how it differs in function from a "non-assault" weapon.

certain types of weapons should require higher regulation of who can own them and for what lawful purpose.

Already the case. See FFL requirements.

whoever applies for a legit lawful purpose should be required to achieve certain high standards of training, etc...

Most carry permits require minimum training, and most carriers have more training than your everyday beat cop. Is that okay with you?

 

[Rustic]

 

[nat4900]

How the hell would a gun manufacturer 5 states over have any idea who you are selling guns to in Chicago? Do you think the cattle rancher knows who is eating his steak at your restaurant? What is it with liberals and a general lack of logic?

Speaking of "logic".......Do you not comprehend that a gun manufacturer that sells assault weapons are selling those weapons UNAWARE that such a weapon may be used to kill as fast and as many people as possible?

 

[Rustic]

 

[kwc57]

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.

gun makers love to make money... and the public deserves to have legal protections.

and lawyer haters always love a good lawyer as soon as they need one.

The public has legal protections. Guns.

 

[Rustic]

 

[nat4900]

They're getting sued for making a product that works???

Only in Liberalland

So, you'd agree that North Korea could sue Pakistan for having bought a nuke that malfunctioned?

 

[Rustic]

 

[kwc57]

How the hell would a gun manufacturer 5 states over have any idea who you are selling guns to in Chicago? Do you think the cattle rancher knows who is eating his steak at your restaurant? What is it with liberals and a general lack of logic?

Speaking of "logic".......Do you not comprehend that a gun manufacturer that sells assault weapons are selling those weapons UNAWARE that such a weapon may be used to kill as fast and as many people as possible?

aware that their product is just as legal as your pants, car, coffee maker and tampon? Look, I realize that scary boomsticks make you pee your panties, but you don't have to buy or use one if you don't want to. Quit trying to control people's lives. Oh wait, you're a liberal......

 

[Rustic]