Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturers.

[Iceweasel]

Let them sue. Sounds like a tough case to win.

But why should gun makers have special laws protecting them from suits ??

Because it's a frivolous backhanded way to interfere with our rights? If they could they would sue every firearms manufacturer under.

 

[bripat9643]

If I go to my convenient store at night, I'm not afraid of some Republican coming in there and holding the place up. Republicans don't do that--Democrats do that.

Or if I go to my ATM at night. I'm not worried about an armed conservative squeezing in between my car and the machine, then demanding I withdraw all my money for him to take. No,no,no, conservatives don't do those types of things--liberals do those types of things.

So you see, the only possible way for us to get rid of guns is if we get rid of liberals first. Since that's not going to happen (Lord knows we've tried) then we need to arm ourselves against liberals. Liberals are violent people you know.........

Yes we know you live in pant-shitting fear of the scary negroes. We get that, guy. Unfortunately, the cost of your fear is 33,000 deaths and 70,000 injuries every year, and frankly, that's too high a price to pay because you are scared.

Most of those deaths are suicides, moron.

Close to 100,000 people die every year from alcohol related illness. Why aren't you more concerned about people drinking?

People use guns to protect themselves from crime 1 - 2 million times a year. Many of those people could have been raped or killed. You math doesn't include those figures.

 

[Deleted member 53821]

Can I sue a newspaper if it wrote a story that caused harm? Imagine the bandwagon lawyers who would line up out the door of the court house to sue any newspaper in the world. One would wonder if industries that are involved in our constitutional rights don't deserve some protection from lawsuits.

 

[JoeB131]

Industries usually get sued for defective products.............Did the weapon misfire........................It works as described and as sold........................

How they use it is the people buying the guns problem......................This will get overturned...............Unless the Supers gets stacked with a Kangaroo Court.

Point was, selling a dangerous product with NO BACKGROUND CHECKS as to who might get their hands on them was defective as a business practice. Yes, the gun did EXACTLY what it was designed to do. Those 5.56 MM rounds blew a nice big holes into those preschoolers.. They never stood a ******* chance.

Again, Obama has been spending the last 8 years putting sane judges on the courts. With Scalia taking that well-deserved dirt nap, SCOTUS won't be stopping common sense gun laws anymore.

 

[Timmy]

Let them sue. Sounds like a tough case to win.

But why should gun makers have special laws protecting them from suits ??

Because it's a frivolous backhanded way to interfere with our rights? If they could they would sue every firearms manufacturer under.

If it's frivolous it will be tossed out of court right away .

 

[JoeB131]

People use guns to protect themselves from crime 1 - 2 million times a year. Many of those people could have been raped or killed. You math doesn't include those figures.

Yes, my figures do not include Unicorn farts, either.

DGU's are a lie. They almost never happen.

 

[bripat9643]

No I will not. I've seen your posts time and time again over my time on these boards........you in the past said you will get our guns. That is your agenda...........Now you are going the path they recommend to get us to register them.

I'm not buying that..........because I know your end game........we're gonna fight you gun grabbers every step of the way

You can fight. But as long as you keep letting the nuts have guns and kill the kiddies, I'm always going to have an argument.

Your agreeing with suing the manufacturer for a criminal using the product is asinine..............and nothing more.......This case will go to the upper courts...............and of course if you get the Supreme Court Hacks of your choice........they will ditch the constitution and call it legal in an effort to push your agenda...........They will not be judges for the Consititution........they will be Political hacks in a black robe....

Actually, there is a shitload of case law on the side of the plaintiffs on this one. If you knowingly sell a dangerous product, you can be held liable.

The gun industry made this situation when it decided Crazy Nancy was a key market. The real problem was the Congress passing a blanket immunity for the gun industry, which probably IS unconstitutional.

Guns are not dangerous to the owner. They are only dangerous to thugs trying to rob you or kill you. I can kill you with a baseball bat, and many people have been killed with them. Why aren't you lobbying to have them made illegal?

We know there are endless idiotic arguments you can use to attack guns, but they remain idiotic.

 

[Timmy]

Can I sue a newspaper if it wrote a story that caused harm? Imagine the bandwagon lawyers who would line up out the door of the court house to sue any newspaper in the world. One would wonder if industries that are involved in our constitutional rights don't deserve some protection from lawsuits.

People sue newspapers all the time .

 

[easyt65]

Let them sue. Sounds like a tough case to win.

But why should gun makers have special laws protecting them from suits ??

Why? Because without them Liberals would allow people to try to hold gun MAKERS accountable rather than the shooters.

The Obama administration gave thousands of guns to Mexican drug cartels resulting in the deaths of innocents, to include 2 Americans. To apply this liberal logic to this case, it would be like allowing victims / families to sue the makers of all those guns instead of Obama and the dumasses who gave the cartels the guns or the cartels themselves.

 

[bripat9643]

Let them sue. Sounds like a tough case to win.

But why should gun makers have special laws protecting them from suits ??

Because it's a frivolous backhanded way to interfere with our rights? If they could they would sue every firearms manufacturer under.

If it's frivolous it will be tossed out of court right away .

It will when it's appealed, or it won't if Hillary manages to get elected.

 

[Timmy]

No I will not. I've seen your posts time and time again over my time on these boards........you in the past said you will get our guns. That is your agenda...........Now you are going the path they recommend to get us to register them.

I'm not buying that..........because I know your end game........we're gonna fight you gun grabbers every step of the way

You can fight. But as long as you keep letting the nuts have guns and kill the kiddies, I'm always going to have an argument.

Your agreeing with suing the manufacturer for a criminal using the product is asinine..............and nothing more.......This case will go to the upper courts...............and of course if you get the Supreme Court Hacks of your choice........they will ditch the constitution and call it legal in an effort to push your agenda...........They will not be judges for the Consititution........they will be Political hacks in a black robe....

Actually, there is a shitload of case law on the side of the plaintiffs on this one. If you knowingly sell a dangerous product, you can be held liable.

The gun industry made this situation when it decided Crazy Nancy was a key market. The real problem was the Congress passing a blanket immunity for the gun industry, which probably IS unconstitutional.

Guns are not dangerous to the owner. They are only dangerous to thugs trying to rob you or kill you. I can kill you with a baseball bat, and many people have been killed with them. Why aren't you lobbying to have them made illegal?

We know there are endless idiotic arguments you can use to attack guns, but they remain idiotic.

Not dangerous tonthe owner ? People accidently shoot Themsleves all the time !

 

[Iceweasel]

Let them sue. Sounds like a tough case to win.

But why should gun makers have special laws protecting them from suits ??

Because it's a frivolous backhanded way to interfere with our rights? If they could they would sue every firearms manufacturer under.

If it's frivolous it will be tossed out of court right away .

Not if the judge is a progressive activist.

 

[JoeB131]

Not far fetched at all . Look into Operation Gladio and what that was all about. They kept that secret for decades until it was De-classified. Google Operation Gladio, Operation Paperclip, Operation Mockingbird, etc, etc. All of those programs required secrecy with thousands involved and they have to sign non-disclosure agreements. Hell, even the people that bulldozed Sandy Hook had to sign non-disclosure agreements....why would that be?.False flags, lies, deceptions and psy-ops have been used on the common people for centuries.

They had to sign non-disclosure agreements so they wouldn't sell stuff from Sandy Hook on Ebay. (Yes, that's the kind of society we live in.)

Hey, Ray, I think we found a guy who is just slightly crazier than you are.

 

[Iceweasel]

No I will not. I've seen your posts time and time again over my time on these boards........you in the past said you will get our guns. That is your agenda...........Now you are going the path they recommend to get us to register them.

I'm not buying that..........because I know your end game........we're gonna fight you gun grabbers every step of the way

You can fight. But as long as you keep letting the nuts have guns and kill the kiddies, I'm always going to have an argument.

Your agreeing with suing the manufacturer for a criminal using the product is asinine..............and nothing more.......This case will go to the upper courts...............and of course if you get the Supreme Court Hacks of your choice........they will ditch the constitution and call it legal in an effort to push your agenda...........They will not be judges for the Consititution........they will be Political hacks in a black robe....

Actually, there is a shitload of case law on the side of the plaintiffs on this one. If you knowingly sell a dangerous product, you can be held liable.

The gun industry made this situation when it decided Crazy Nancy was a key market. The real problem was the Congress passing a blanket immunity for the gun industry, which probably IS unconstitutional.

Guns are not dangerous to the owner. They are only dangerous to thugs trying to rob you or kill you. I can kill you with a baseball bat, and many people have been killed with them. Why aren't you lobbying to have them made illegal?

We know there are endless idiotic arguments you can use to attack guns, but they remain idiotic.

Not dangerous tonthe owner ? People accidently shoot Themsleves all the time !

If they misuse it. Like backing over your kid in the driveway with your car. Ford isn't responsible.

 

[bripat9643]

Industries usually get sued for defective products.............Did the weapon misfire........................It works as described and as sold........................

How they use it is the people buying the guns problem......................This will get overturned...............Unless the Supers gets stacked with a Kangaroo Court.

Point was, selling a dangerous product with NO BACKGROUND CHECKS as to who might get their hands on them was defective as a business practice. Yes, the gun did EXACTLY what it was designed to do. Those 5.56 MM rounds blew a nice big holes into those preschoolers.. They never stood a ******* chance.

Again, Obama has been spending the last 8 years putting sane judges on the courts. With Scalia taking that well-deserved dirt nap, SCOTUS won't be stopping common sense gun laws anymore.

Poison is a dangerous product. You can walk into any hardware store and buy Strychnine. thousands of people are poisoned every year. When are you going to demand that poison be outlawed?

 

[bripat9643]

Can I sue a newspaper if it wrote a story that caused harm? Imagine the bandwagon lawyers who would line up out the door of the court house to sue any newspaper in the world. One would wonder if industries that are involved in our constitutional rights don't deserve some protection from lawsuits.

People sue newspapers all the time .

For slander. They don't sue newspapers who glorified some mass shooter and thereby encouraged other kooks to imitate his actions.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Industries usually get sued for defective products.............Did the weapon misfire........................It works as described and as sold........................

How they use it is the people buying the guns problem......................This will get overturned...............Unless the Supers gets stacked with a Kangaroo Court.

Point was, selling a dangerous product with NO BACKGROUND CHECKS as to who might get their hands on them was defective as a business practice. Yes, the gun did EXACTLY what it was designed to do. Those 5.56 MM rounds blew a nice big holes into those preschoolers.. They never stood a ******* chance.

Again, Obama has been spending the last 8 years putting sane judges on the courts. With Scalia taking that well-deserved dirt nap, SCOTUS won't be stopping common sense gun laws anymore.

And it wasn't the guns fault. You're a perfect example of liberal logic.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

If I go to my convenient store at night, I'm not afraid of some Republican coming in there and holding the place up. Republicans don't do that--Democrats do that.

Or if I go to my ATM at night. I'm not worried about an armed conservative squeezing in between my car and the machine, then demanding I withdraw all my money for him to take. No,no,no, conservatives don't do those types of things--liberals do those types of things.

So you see, the only possible way for us to get rid of guns is if we get rid of liberals first. Since that's not going to happen (Lord knows we've tried) then we need to arm ourselves against liberals. Liberals are violent people you know.........

Yes we know you live in pant-shitting fear of the scary negroes. We get that, guy. Unfortunately, the cost of your fear is 33,000 deaths and 70,000 injuries every year, and frankly, that's too high a price to pay because you are scared.

99 percent of which are committed by felons, criminals, etc. We know...you're afraid of guns, afraid to lay the blame where it belongs, and take the easy way out.

 

[westwall]

So if someone kills someone with a knife, can they sue the knife manufacturers? Ridiculous.

Hell, someone uses a car to take them to a place where they kill someone. They wouldn't have been able to get there were it not for the car. Thus the car manufacturer is to blame as well. This is all part of the strategy to so completely wrap this country up in knots that it can't function anymore. Useful idiots are setting this country up for an epic fall. My only hope is that they are among the first that get put up against the wall.

 

[ChrisL]

No I will not. I've seen your posts time and time again over my time on these boards........you in the past said you will get our guns. That is your agenda...........Now you are going the path they recommend to get us to register them.

I'm not buying that..........because I know your end game........we're gonna fight you gun grabbers every step of the way

You can fight. But as long as you keep letting the nuts have guns and kill the kiddies, I'm always going to have an argument.

Your agreeing with suing the manufacturer for a criminal using the product is asinine..............and nothing more.......This case will go to the upper courts...............and of course if you get the Supreme Court Hacks of your choice........they will ditch the constitution and call it legal in an effort to push your agenda...........They will not be judges for the Consititution........they will be Political hacks in a black robe....

Actually, there is a shitload of case law on the side of the plaintiffs on this one. If you knowingly sell a dangerous product, you can be held liable.

The gun industry made this situation when it decided Crazy Nancy was a key market. The real problem was the Congress passing a blanket immunity for the gun industry, which probably IS unconstitutional.

Guns are not dangerous to the owner. They are only dangerous to thugs trying to rob you or kill you. I can kill you with a baseball bat, and many people have been killed with them. Why aren't you lobbying to have them made illegal?

We know there are endless idiotic arguments you can use to attack guns, but they remain idiotic.

Not dangerous tonthe owner ? People accidently shoot Themsleves all the time !

And people drown in their own backyard pools all the time too. Are the pool manufacturers responsible?