Newtown victims gets million from murdered woman

[PaintMyHouse]

I don't understand why there is a problem with this. The lawsuit was about negligence, not guns. Why so defensive? This curtails no ones 2nd. amendment rights. I suppose you could argue there wasn't enough evidence of negligence but I don't think it is far fetched at all that there likely was. Just because you have a constitutional right doesn't mean it removes reasonable responsibility. Example-right to free speech: you incite a riot, you can be held responsible for your actions.

Regarding the lawsuit against the gun maker, that is rubbish and should be thrown out. Gun rights advocates should absolutely have a problem with that.

You don't understand the left or their anti 2nd amendment wing....you think it would be reasonable to require people to lock up their guns.....and then you won't understand the power you will have just given to them to deny normal people the ability to access their rights under the 2nd Amendment. Home searches specifically to check to make sure guns are locked up and secure, mandating the type of gun safe that is required and thereby pricing all but the wealthiest Americans out of owning guns, or requiring gun owners to secure their guns in public armories monitored by the police...

They do not understand reasonable, they just know that any inch is going to allow them to take a mile.....

What is reasonable to you is unreasonable to most, just as in this case where a very stupid woman let her very sick son have guns around.

 

[WheelieAddict]

I don't understand why there is a problem with this. The lawsuit was about negligence, not guns. Why so defensive? This curtails no ones 2nd. amendment rights. I suppose you could argue there wasn't enough evidence of negligence but I don't think it is far fetched at all that there likely was. Just because you have a constitutional right doesn't mean it removes reasonable responsibility. Example-right to free speech: you incite a riot, you can be held responsible for your actions.

Regarding the lawsuit against the gun maker, that is rubbish and should be thrown out. Gun rights advocates should absolutely have a problem with that.

You don't understand the left or their anti 2nd amendment wing....you think it would be reasonable to require people to lock up their guns.....and then you won't understand the power you will have just given to them to deny normal people the ability to access their rights under the 2nd Amendment. Home searches specifically to check to make sure guns are locked up and secure, mandating the type of gun safe that is required and thereby pricing all but the wealthiest Americans out of owning guns, or requiring gun owners to secure their guns in public armories monitored by the police...

They do not understand reasonable, they just know that any inch is going to allow them to take a mile.....

I see you have a slippery slope argument, and I think it is a bit ridiculous. You are saying there should not be responsibility because it could lead to govt. overreach. I reject that argument.

This is not black/white. You can do whatever you want/govt. can do whatever they want. Be reasonable. People have to be held responsible for negligence. Just because the govt. could try to overreach doesn't mean you throw that out. And if they do I will be right along with you against them.

 

[2aguy]

I don't understand why there is a problem with this. The lawsuit was about negligence, not guns. Why so defensive? This curtails no ones 2nd. amendment rights. I suppose you could argue there wasn't enough evidence of negligence but I don't think it is far fetched at all that there likely was. Just because you have a constitutional right doesn't mean it removes reasonable responsibility. Example-right to free speech: you incite a riot, you can be held responsible for your actions.

Regarding the lawsuit against the gun maker, that is rubbish and should be thrown out. Gun rights advocates should absolutely have a problem with that.

You don't understand the left or their anti 2nd amendment wing....you think it would be reasonable to require people to lock up their guns.....and then you won't understand the power you will have just given to them to deny normal people the ability to access their rights under the 2nd Amendment. Home searches specifically to check to make sure guns are locked up and secure, mandating the type of gun safe that is required and thereby pricing all but the wealthiest Americans out of owning guns, or requiring gun owners to secure their guns in public armories monitored by the police...

They do not understand reasonable, they just know that any inch is going to allow them to take a mile.....

I see you have a slippery slope argument, and I think it is a bit ridiculous. You are saying there should not be responsibility because it could lead to govt. overreach. I reject that argument.

This is not black/white. You can do whatever you want/govt. can do whatever they want. Be reasonable. People have to be held responsible for negligence. Just because the govt. could try to overreach doesn't mean you throw that out. And if they do I will be right along with you against them.

Nope....not making that argument...

People are held responsible for negilgence and criminal activity right now with all the current gun laws we have. Not one new law that they want would have stopped what happened. You can mandate, as they want, insurance, and safe storage laws, and not one criminal would comply and every single mass shooter would comply before they committed their mass shootings.

So who would be the actual target of these unconstitutional laws....normal, law abiding gun owners, making a legal activity into a felony trap...........which is the whole point. Make owning a gun, which is a Right, legally risky by creating laws where none are needed, and where breaking them through clerical errors into life destroying events for normal people.....

 

[2aguy]

I don't understand why there is a problem with this. The lawsuit was about negligence, not guns. Why so defensive? This curtails no ones 2nd. amendment rights. I suppose you could argue there wasn't enough evidence of negligence but I don't think it is far fetched at all that there likely was. Just because you have a constitutional right doesn't mean it removes reasonable responsibility. Example-right to free speech: you incite a riot, you can be held responsible for your actions.

Regarding the lawsuit against the gun maker, that is rubbish and should be thrown out. Gun rights advocates should absolutely have a problem with that.

You don't understand the left or their anti 2nd amendment wing....you think it would be reasonable to require people to lock up their guns.....and then you won't understand the power you will have just given to them to deny normal people the ability to access their rights under the 2nd Amendment. Home searches specifically to check to make sure guns are locked up and secure, mandating the type of gun safe that is required and thereby pricing all but the wealthiest Americans out of owning guns, or requiring gun owners to secure their guns in public armories monitored by the police...

They do not understand reasonable, they just know that any inch is going to allow them to take a mile.....

I see you have a slippery slope argument, and I think it is a bit ridiculous. You are saying there should not be responsibility because it could lead to govt. overreach. I reject that argument.

This is not black/white. You can do whatever you want/govt. can do whatever they want. Be reasonable. People have to be held responsible for negligence. Just because the govt. could try to overreach doesn't mean you throw that out. And if they do I will be right along with you against them.

This is the point.......

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...enforcement-takes-human-toll-column/75414186/

Cottrol noted that crimes like carrying or owning a pistol without a license are what the law has traditionally termed malum prohibitum — that is, things that are wrong only because they are prohibited. (The contrast is with the other traditional category, malum in se, those things, like rape, robbery, and murder, that are wrong in themselves.)

Traditionally, penalties for malum prohibitum acts were generally light, since the conduct that the laws governed wasn’t wrong in itself. But modern American law often treats even obscure and technical violations of gun laws as felonies and —Cottrol noted — prosecutors often go out of their way to prosecute these crimes more vigorously even than traditional crimes like rape or murder.


If it were up to me, I’d find it a violation of the due process clause to treat violation of regulatory statutes as a felony. Historically, only the most serious crimes — typically carrying the death penalty — were felonies.Nowadays, though, we designate all sorts of trivial crimes, such as possessing an eagle feather, as felonies. This has the effect of empowering police and prosecutors at the expense of citizens, since it’s easy to find a felony if you look hard enough, and few citizens have the courage of a veteran like Cort, who went to trial anyway. Most will plead to something.

Meanwhile, on the gun front, I think we need federal civil rights legislation to protect citizens who make innocent mistakes. Federal law already defines who is allowed to possess firearms. Under Congress’s civil rights powers (gun ownership and carrying, after all, are protected under the Second Amendment), I think we need federal legislation limiting the maximum penalty a state can assess for possessing or carrying a firearm on the part of someone allowed to own a gun under federal law to a $500 fine. That would let states regulate reasonably, without permitting this sort of injustice.

 

[WheelieAddict]

I don't understand why there is a problem with this. The lawsuit was about negligence, not guns. Why so defensive? This curtails no ones 2nd. amendment rights. I suppose you could argue there wasn't enough evidence of negligence but I don't think it is far fetched at all that there likely was. Just because you have a constitutional right doesn't mean it removes reasonable responsibility. Example-right to free speech: you incite a riot, you can be held responsible for your actions.

Regarding the lawsuit against the gun maker, that is rubbish and should be thrown out. Gun rights advocates should absolutely have a problem with that.

Where in my posts did I advocate new laws?



You don't understand the left or their anti 2nd amendment wing....you think it would be reasonable to require people to lock up their guns.....and then you won't understand the power you will have just given to them to deny normal people the ability to access their rights under the 2nd Amendment. Home searches specifically to check to make sure guns are locked up and secure, mandating the type of gun safe that is required and thereby pricing all but the wealthiest Americans out of owning guns, or requiring gun owners to secure their guns in public armories monitored by the police...

They do not understand reasonable, they just know that any inch is going to allow them to take a mile.....

I see you have a slippery slope argument, and I think it is a bit ridiculous. You are saying there should not be responsibility because it could lead to govt. overreach. I reject that argument.

This is not black/white. You can do whatever you want/govt. can do whatever they want. Be reasonable. People have to be held responsible for negligence. Just because the govt. could try to overreach doesn't mean you throw that out. And if they do I will be right along with you against them.

Nope....not making that argument...

People are held responsible for negilgence and criminal activity right now with all the current gun laws we have. Not one new law that they want would have stopped what happened. You can mandate, as they want, insurance, and safe storage laws, and not one criminal would comply and every single mass shooter would comply before they committed their mass shootings.

So who would be the actual target of these unconstitutional laws....normal, law abiding gun owners, making a legal activity into a felony trap...........which is the whole point. Make owning a gun, which is a Right, legally risky by creating laws where none are needed, and where breaking them through clerical errors into life destroying events for normal people.....

Where am I advocating new laws? Was there a new law used in the negligence verdict for civil penalties that this thread is about I missed?

 

[JOSweetHeart]

And had she not had guns in the house, she liked them, she, 20 kiddos, and six adults would very likely still be alive.

Amen to this. It all begins with what a child has to go home to.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

P.S. Forgive me if its been said already in this already long chat, but how much will each family get of the money since they are to each get the same amount from it?

 

[2aguy]

Did the mother break the law?

Did she give the gun to her son to commit murder?

Since the answer to both questions is no, no reward should have been given...at least in a sane country.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

^^^ No to both questions that you asked here, but the boy's access to the gun that he used did come from his mom.

God bless you and the families of his victims always!!!

Holly

 

[WheelieAddict]

Did the mother break the law?

Did she give the gun to her son to commit murder?

Since the answer to both questions is no, no reward should have been given...at least in a sane country.

^^^Thinks the USA isn't a sane country because you can be sued for negligence under civil law.

 

[Old Rocks]

Newtown families split $1.5M from estate of gunman's mother
BRIDGEPORT, Conn. — The families of more than a dozen victims of the 2012 school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, will split $1.5 million under settlements of lawsuits filed against the gunman's mother's estate.
A lawyer for several victims' families says the settlements were finalized Dec. 17 in documents filed in Bridgeport Superior Court.
The lawsuits said Nancy Lanza failed to properly secure her legally owned Bushmaster AR-15 rifle. Her son, 20-year-old Adam Lanza, used the rifle to kill 20 first-graders and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Dec. 14, 2012. He killed his mother before the school shooting and killed himself afterward.

So she failed to properly secure her gun after she was dead?

This is the kicker
"Victims' families also are suing the maker of the Bushmaster rifle."
You have GOT to be fuckin kiddin me!
I guess we can start suing chevy when drunk drivers run over civilians. Maybe we could throw in Budweiser, too.
That is one of the most PATHETIC legal suits I have ever heard of.
And we have Presidential candidates supporting them getting sued!

Dear little corksmoker. The Bushmaster is made for one purpose only, killing people. And the crazies mother actually took her insane spawn out shooting. Yes, she, and Bushmaster, needs to be sued. And every one else that abets the insanity that has these multiple shooting being a weekly occurrence in our nation.

 

[2aguy]

^^^ No to both questions that you asked here, but the boy's access to the gun that he used did come from his mom.

God bless you and the families of his victims always!!!

Holly

And had the boy, who actually did the shooting been captured, he should have been punished.

 

[TNHarley]

Newtown families split $1.5M from estate of gunman's mother
BRIDGEPORT, Conn. — The families of more than a dozen victims of the 2012 school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, will split $1.5 million under settlements of lawsuits filed against the gunman's mother's estate.
A lawyer for several victims' families says the settlements were finalized Dec. 17 in documents filed in Bridgeport Superior Court.
The lawsuits said Nancy Lanza failed to properly secure her legally owned Bushmaster AR-15 rifle. Her son, 20-year-old Adam Lanza, used the rifle to kill 20 first-graders and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Dec. 14, 2012. He killed his mother before the school shooting and killed himself afterward.

So she failed to properly secure her gun after she was dead?

This is the kicker
"Victims' families also are suing the maker of the Bushmaster rifle."
You have GOT to be fuckin kiddin me!
I guess we can start suing chevy when drunk drivers run over civilians. Maybe we could throw in Budweiser, too.
That is one of the most PATHETIC legal suits I have ever heard of.
And we have Presidential candidates supporting them getting sued!

Dear little corksmoker. The Bushmaster is made for one purpose only, killing people. And the crazies mother actually took her insane spawn out shooting. Yes, she, and Bushmaster, needs to be sued. And every one else that abets the insanity that has these multiple shooting being a weekly occurrence in our nation.

Too bad I can't post a retard GIF..

 

[Old Rocks]

They don't care about the dead kids….they just want to be able to go after the guns owned by actual sinners…those who own guns. That sin will never be forgiven, forgotten or allowed to continue if they can help it.

They have to be fought each step they take….

Such a lying bastard you are. You are the kind that will bring about stringent gun control in this nation.

 

[2aguy]

Newtown families split $1.5M from estate of gunman's mother
BRIDGEPORT, Conn. — The families of more than a dozen victims of the 2012 school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, will split $1.5 million under settlements of lawsuits filed against the gunman's mother's estate.
A lawyer for several victims' families says the settlements were finalized Dec. 17 in documents filed in Bridgeport Superior Court.
The lawsuits said Nancy Lanza failed to properly secure her legally owned Bushmaster AR-15 rifle. Her son, 20-year-old Adam Lanza, used the rifle to kill 20 first-graders and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Dec. 14, 2012. He killed his mother before the school shooting and killed himself afterward.

So she failed to properly secure her gun after she was dead?

This is the kicker
"Victims' families also are suing the maker of the Bushmaster rifle."
You have GOT to be fuckin kiddin me!
I guess we can start suing chevy when drunk drivers run over civilians. Maybe we could throw in Budweiser, too.
That is one of the most PATHETIC legal suits I have ever heard of.
And we have Presidential candidates supporting them getting sued!

Dear little corksmoker. The Bushmaster is made for one purpose only, killing people. And the crazies mother actually took her insane spawn out shooting. Yes, she, and Bushmaster, needs to be sued. And every one else that abets the insanity that has these multiple shooting being a weekly occurrence in our nation.

No...the Bushmaster was made to preserve the life of the user......and with 3,700,000 AR-15s in private hands in the United only a hand full are ever used in crimes each year.......

Knives kill more people than Bushmaster rifles.....

Blunt objects kill more people than Bushmaster rifles....

Barehands kill more people than Bushmaster rifles....

 

[Old Rocks]

^^^ No to both questions that you asked here, but the boy's access to the gun that he used did come from his mom.

God bless you and the families of his victims always!!!

Holly

And had the boy, who actually did the shooting been captured, he should have been punished.

And that would have helped the dead kids? You are bordering on insane.

 

[2aguy]

They don't care about the dead kids….they just want to be able to go after the guns owned by actual sinners…those who own guns. That sin will never be forgiven, forgotten or allowed to continue if they can help it.

They have to be fought each step they take….

Such a lying bastard you are. You are the kind that will bring about stringent gun control in this nation.

Yes or no....do anti gun extremists fight to keep gun safety out of public schools?

 

[Old Rocks]

Newtown families split $1.5M from estate of gunman's mother
BRIDGEPORT, Conn. — The families of more than a dozen victims of the 2012 school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, will split $1.5 million under settlements of lawsuits filed against the gunman's mother's estate.
A lawyer for several victims' families says the settlements were finalized Dec. 17 in documents filed in Bridgeport Superior Court.
The lawsuits said Nancy Lanza failed to properly secure her legally owned Bushmaster AR-15 rifle. Her son, 20-year-old Adam Lanza, used the rifle to kill 20 first-graders and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Dec. 14, 2012. He killed his mother before the school shooting and killed himself afterward.

So she failed to properly secure her gun after she was dead?

This is the kicker
"Victims' families also are suing the maker of the Bushmaster rifle."
You have GOT to be fuckin kiddin me!
I guess we can start suing chevy when drunk drivers run over civilians. Maybe we could throw in Budweiser, too.
That is one of the most PATHETIC legal suits I have ever heard of.
And we have Presidential candidates supporting them getting sued!

Dear little corksmoker. The Bushmaster is made for one purpose only, killing people. And the crazies mother actually took her insane spawn out shooting. Yes, she, and Bushmaster, needs to be sued. And every one else that abets the insanity that has these multiple shooting being a weekly occurrence in our nation.

Too bad I can't post a retard GIF..

Really, I think you do every time you post.

 

[2aguy]

^^^ No to both questions that you asked here, but the boy's access to the gun that he used did come from his mom.

God bless you and the families of his victims always!!!

Holly

And had the boy, who actually did the shooting been captured, he should have been punished.

And that would have helped the dead kids? You are bordering on insane.

And what would you have done to stop him before the act......? There is nothing you could have done or passed into law to stop the kid.

You are insane...you want laws that prevent crime before they happen...that is not what laws do...they tell you what you cannot do and what your punishment will be if you do it anyway.......

 

[Old Rocks]

They don't care about the dead kids….they just want to be able to go after the guns owned by actual sinners…those who own guns. That sin will never be forgiven, forgotten or allowed to continue if they can help it.

They have to be fought each step they take….

Such a lying bastard you are. You are the kind that will bring about stringent gun control in this nation.

Yes or no....do anti gun extremists fight to keep gun safety out of public schools?

Little idiot, I have helped teach gun safety in Scouts. I am, and have been a gun owner for 60 years. But you kind of extremism about guns is what is one of the drivers of gun violence in this nation. We are a first world nation with a third world nation death rate from gun violence.

 

[initforme]

A million ain't much. No biggie here.