The Moment Sandy Hook Parents start cashing in their kids..

[ChrisL]

I feel badly for the families, but it is not the fault of the guns or the gun manufacturers or lobbyists. None of those people are advocating for a person to go shoot up schools or anything like that. There is only one person to blame, and that is the person who pulled the trigger.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Good for them. This is the worst situation possible for them and NOTHING has changed from it. Nothing. **** gun lobbyists who prevent any sort of real legislation passing that would help cut down on these situations occurring. You can't sue lobbyists and this is America so the gun makers are the next most logical target. If they don't want to be sued then don't make guns.

Go ahead gun nuts, lets have it.

What law would have prevented this?

The laws that we'll never have in this country. And nothing will prevent this all together, I said "cut down" (ie. reduce). But it doesn't matter, we live in a society full of selfish assholes and will never have any meaningful gun control put in place.

Why didn't Australia's strict gun control laws, the kind you're calling for, stop the hostage crisis in Sidney?

Thanks for proving my point.

How many situations like this has Australia had since real gun laws were implemented? How many have we had?

Again, laws don't do away with anything 100%. Rape is illegal but it still happens, that doesn't mean we get rid of rape laws because they can't stop it 100% of the time.

Your example only proves that the right laws can reduce mass shootings. Australia is proof of it.

Oh? Proof?
This table shows gun homicides almost doubled from years 2011 to 2012.....From 0.11 to 0.20 per 100,000 Pop.
Australia has 23. 3 million people. Of which 10% live in far flung places away from cities. These places most likely do not keep very accurate crime stats.
Australia is also a largely homogeneous society which most are aware of tends to result in much lower crime rates due to more civilized and orderly society

 

[thereisnospoon]

Good for them. This is the worst situation possible for them and NOTHING has changed from it. Nothing. **** gun lobbyists who prevent any sort of real legislation passing that would help cut down on these situations occurring. You can't sue lobbyists and this is America so the gun makers are the next most logical target. If they don't want to be sued then don't make guns.

Go ahead gun nuts, lets have it.

Not the gun manufacturers fault. Anyone with a step above the primordial stew would know that.

I didn't say it was. I said it's the gun lobby's fault. But you can't sue them. So the gun manufacturers are next in line.

It't not the gun lobby's fault either. Hint: it starts with the shooter and his upbringing.

Bzzzzzz. Wrong. There are poor and mentally unstable people all over the world. Want to try again?

Who said anything about poor people?
Are you implying that poor people have a propensity toward excessive gun violence?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

No. You are. I'm combat trained to know my weapon and know my target. You've already admitted you would be an incompetent retard with a gun. Don't project that on others.

And I hate to break it to you, but Santa Clause doesn't exist.

This guy is trained too.
Gun safety instructor accidentally shoots student - CNN.com

Are you stupid enough to think this happens often? Firearms accidents are caused mostly by ignorance of guns and failure to follow basic safety rules. People like you do this. Not people like me.

I'm sure he said the same thing. So did the guy with the Uzi girl no doubt.

So then, I expect the next time a child dies in a drowning in the pool due to a parent's negligence, you will demand that we ban swimming pools?

And you base that on my not demanding the banning of guns?

Actually we have no idea what your proposals are. You keep referring us to a phantom post that doesn't exist as a desperate veneer to hide how full of shit you are.

 

[Brain357]

..they became assholes. Some law firm enticed them with a bunch of zeros and now they're going to exploit the "good fortune" of their children being killed and laugh all the way to the bank.

I have the utmost compassion for anyone who loses a child, especially to a senseless act of violence. But that compassion dries up quickly when the victims become the agressors, filing a lawsuit that has no merit because people generally understand you can't hold manufacturers responsible for the misuse of their product because that is entirely out of their control.

So to those nine families I would say, don't plan on meeting your little angels in heaven because avarice is the shortest route to hell.

It is probably because politicians have done nothing. They probably just want to do something.

The politicians have done something. They passed a law so gun manufacturers can't be held liable for people misusing their products. That makes it better for those who use them legally.

As far as the deterioration of society, that isn't the politicians fault, you get what you vote for.

Well they should probably be suing the government for making it legal for him to have he weapon. Guns with hi cap mags are only used to kill lots of innocent people. I've never heard of one needed for defense.

Phantom post.

 

[Brain357]

That is not a civilian defense. Stats show 2-3 shots for defense. Now mass shooters they love the hi cap mags.

I see so you are saying civilians are more efficient and effective at using their guns for self defense than trained cops.

I'm saying defending yourself and police work are very different. A citizen wouldn't have been messing with him in the first place. Please share examples of civilian defenders needing more than 10 rds for defense.

The very premise of your question is a lie. 2nd Amendment rights aren't predicated on how much ammunition the government says we need, the very same government that the 2nd Amendment is designed to defend the people against. There are 30 rounds in my combat weapon's magazine, the same number as police and those in the military. This is precisely the kind of balance of firepower the ratifiers envisioned. The capacity of my gun magazines is not something I ever have to justify to government.

The list of murderers using hi cap magazines is extremely long, while there are no examples I know of anyone needing one for defense. I guess you want to keep the bad guys very well armed.

Your laws won't disarm the bad guys, dumbass. The same crime could have been accomplished with 10 round magazines which take only 3 seconds to change out. That's why this lawsuit will fail, the greed addled plaintiffs not being able to demonstrate that an assault rifle is the only weapon capable of killing that many people.

Idiot responding to phantom post.

Pretty pathetic when you can't keep track of your own thread.

 

[Iceweasel]

Lots of Brainfarts already this morning.

 

[ChrisL]

I see so you are saying civilians are more efficient and effective at using their guns for self defense than trained cops.

I'm saying defending yourself and police work are very different. A citizen wouldn't have been messing with him in the first place. Please share examples of civilian defenders needing more than 10 rds for defense.

The very premise of your question is a lie. 2nd Amendment rights aren't predicated on how much ammunition the government says we need, the very same government that the 2nd Amendment is designed to defend the people against. There are 30 rounds in my combat weapon's magazine, the same number as police and those in the military. This is precisely the kind of balance of firepower the ratifiers envisioned. The capacity of my gun magazines is not something I ever have to justify to government.

The list of murderers using hi cap magazines is extremely long, while there are no examples I know of anyone needing one for defense. I guess you want to keep the bad guys very well armed.

Your laws won't disarm the bad guys, dumbass. The same crime could have been accomplished with 10 round magazines which take only 3 seconds to change out. That's why this lawsuit will fail, the greed addled plaintiffs not being able to demonstrate that an assault rifle is the only weapon capable of killing that many people.

Idiot responding to phantom post.

Pretty pathetic when you can't keep track of your own thread.

Well, if you took your position seriously or even had a position, you would be able to outline it when asked to do so. Is that NOT the reason why you are participating here? Or are you just a troll? If you want to be taken seriously, then I suggest you outline your position on the second amendment clearly. THEN, we can start to have a discussion. Because, this is JUST the beginning.

 

[ChrisL]

..they became assholes. Some law firm enticed them with a bunch of zeros and now they're going to exploit the "good fortune" of their children being killed and laugh all the way to the bank.

I have the utmost compassion for anyone who loses a child, especially to a senseless act of violence. But that compassion dries up quickly when the victims become the agressors, filing a lawsuit that has no merit because people generally understand you can't hold manufacturers responsible for the misuse of their product because that is entirely out of their control.

So to those nine families I would say, don't plan on meeting your little angels in heaven because avarice is the shortest route to hell.

It is probably because politicians have done nothing. They probably just want to do something.

The politicians have done something. They passed a law so gun manufacturers can't be held liable for people misusing their products. That makes it better for those who use them legally.

As far as the deterioration of society, that isn't the politicians fault, you get what you vote for.

Well they should probably be suing the government for making it legal for him to have he weapon. Guns with hi cap mags are only used to kill lots of innocent people. I've never heard of one needed for defense.

Phantom post.

What kind of restrictions would you like to see put on our Second Amendment right, besides ammunition restrictions. Also, please outline how you feel ammunition restrictions will help stop crime.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I see so you are saying civilians are more efficient and effective at using their guns for self defense than trained cops.

I'm saying defending yourself and police work are very different. A citizen wouldn't have been messing with him in the first place. Please share examples of civilian defenders needing more than 10 rds for defense.

The very premise of your question is a lie. 2nd Amendment rights aren't predicated on how much ammunition the government says we need, the very same government that the 2nd Amendment is designed to defend the people against. There are 30 rounds in my combat weapon's magazine, the same number as police and those in the military. This is precisely the kind of balance of firepower the ratifiers envisioned. The capacity of my gun magazines is not something I ever have to justify to government.

The list of murderers using hi cap magazines is extremely long, while there are no examples I know of anyone needing one for defense. I guess you want to keep the bad guys very well armed.

Your laws won't disarm the bad guys, dumbass. The same crime could have been accomplished with 10 round magazines which take only 3 seconds to change out. That's why this lawsuit will fail, the greed addled plaintiffs not being able to demonstrate that an assault rifle is the only weapon capable of killing that many people.

Idiot responding to phantom post.

Pretty pathetic when you can't keep track of your own thread.

No wonder we all missed it. That's not even a position or a proposal, just an opinion that they should sue and you don't like hi cap magazines. Are you saying they should be illegal? Just what the hell are you saying?

 

[ChrisL]

I'm saying defending yourself and police work are very different. A citizen wouldn't have been messing with him in the first place. Please share examples of civilian defenders needing more than 10 rds for defense.

The very premise of your question is a lie. 2nd Amendment rights aren't predicated on how much ammunition the government says we need, the very same government that the 2nd Amendment is designed to defend the people against. There are 30 rounds in my combat weapon's magazine, the same number as police and those in the military. This is precisely the kind of balance of firepower the ratifiers envisioned. The capacity of my gun magazines is not something I ever have to justify to government.

The list of murderers using hi cap magazines is extremely long, while there are no examples I know of anyone needing one for defense. I guess you want to keep the bad guys very well armed.

Your laws won't disarm the bad guys, dumbass. The same crime could have been accomplished with 10 round magazines which take only 3 seconds to change out. That's why this lawsuit will fail, the greed addled plaintiffs not being able to demonstrate that an assault rifle is the only weapon capable of killing that many people.

Idiot responding to phantom post.

Pretty pathetic when you can't keep track of your own thread.

No wonder we all missed it. That's not even a position or a proposal, just an opinion that they should sue and you don't like hi cap magazines. Are you saying they should be illegal? Just what the hell are you saying?

I don't think Brain has thought anything through at all, and that all of his responses are simply knee jerk reactions.

 

[Silhouette]

This thread is retarded. The parents of Sandy Hook "en masse" suddenly becoming apathic with respect to the memory of their dead children?

Don't think so.

I think they are instead trying to send a message to the gun industry "hey, knock it off with the semi-automatic assault rifles sold to the general public". I think their logic is to stave off future child-deaths so other parents don't have to go through what they did.

 

[Brain357]

The very premise of your question is a lie. 2nd Amendment rights aren't predicated on how much ammunition the government says we need, the very same government that the 2nd Amendment is designed to defend the people against. There are 30 rounds in my combat weapon's magazine, the same number as police and those in the military. This is precisely the kind of balance of firepower the ratifiers envisioned. The capacity of my gun magazines is not something I ever have to justify to government.

The list of murderers using hi cap magazines is extremely long, while there are no examples I know of anyone needing one for defense. I guess you want to keep the bad guys very well armed.

Your laws won't disarm the bad guys, dumbass. The same crime could have been accomplished with 10 round magazines which take only 3 seconds to change out. That's why this lawsuit will fail, the greed addled plaintiffs not being able to demonstrate that an assault rifle is the only weapon capable of killing that many people.

Idiot responding to phantom post.

Pretty pathetic when you can't keep track of your own thread.

No wonder we all missed it. That's not even a position or a proposal, just an opinion that they should sue and you don't like hi cap magazines. Are you saying they should be illegal? Just what the hell are you saying?

I don't think Brain has thought anything through at all, and that all of his responses are simply knee jerk reactions.

Says the person who was arguing against things I was going to restrict without knowing what those things were....

 

[Brain357]

I'm saying defending yourself and police work are very different. A citizen wouldn't have been messing with him in the first place. Please share examples of civilian defenders needing more than 10 rds for defense.

The very premise of your question is a lie. 2nd Amendment rights aren't predicated on how much ammunition the government says we need, the very same government that the 2nd Amendment is designed to defend the people against. There are 30 rounds in my combat weapon's magazine, the same number as police and those in the military. This is precisely the kind of balance of firepower the ratifiers envisioned. The capacity of my gun magazines is not something I ever have to justify to government.

The list of murderers using hi cap magazines is extremely long, while there are no examples I know of anyone needing one for defense. I guess you want to keep the bad guys very well armed.

Your laws won't disarm the bad guys, dumbass. The same crime could have been accomplished with 10 round magazines which take only 3 seconds to change out. That's why this lawsuit will fail, the greed addled plaintiffs not being able to demonstrate that an assault rifle is the only weapon capable of killing that many people.

Idiot responding to phantom post.

Pretty pathetic when you can't keep track of your own thread.

No wonder we all missed it. That's not even a position or a proposal, just an opinion that they should sue and you don't like hi cap magazines. Are you saying they should be illegal? Just what the hell are you saying?

Oh are you sure I didn't say more? I haven't reposted everything. Stop embarrassing yourself.

 

[Carib Gyal]

The parents should sue humanity for existing. Without humans there would be no guns, ergo, their children would still be alive. Except they wouldn't, because there would be no humans, but still.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

This thread is retarded. The parents of Sandy Hook "en masse" suddenly becoming apathic with respect to the memory of their dead children?

Don't think so.

I think they are instead trying to send a message to the gun industry "hey, knock it off with the semi-automatic assault rifles sold to the general public". I think their logic is to stave off future child-deaths so other parents don't have to go through what they did.

They miss their children and their cashing in on them. Why can't it be both? And the reason this lawsuit will fail is because the money hungry parents will fail to demonstrate that an assault rifle was needed to pull it off. When the Bushmaster defense team proves that a large number of legally sold guns could have been used, including pistols, hunting rifles, and shotguns, the greedy, amoral parents will lose.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The very premise of your question is a lie. 2nd Amendment rights aren't predicated on how much ammunition the government says we need, the very same government that the 2nd Amendment is designed to defend the people against. There are 30 rounds in my combat weapon's magazine, the same number as police and those in the military. This is precisely the kind of balance of firepower the ratifiers envisioned. The capacity of my gun magazines is not something I ever have to justify to government.

The list of murderers using hi cap magazines is extremely long, while there are no examples I know of anyone needing one for defense. I guess you want to keep the bad guys very well armed.

Your laws won't disarm the bad guys, dumbass. The same crime could have been accomplished with 10 round magazines which take only 3 seconds to change out. That's why this lawsuit will fail, the greed addled plaintiffs not being able to demonstrate that an assault rifle is the only weapon capable of killing that many people.

Idiot responding to phantom post.

Pretty pathetic when you can't keep track of your own thread.

No wonder we all missed it. That's not even a position or a proposal, just an opinion that they should sue and you don't like hi cap magazines. Are you saying they should be illegal? Just what the hell are you saying?

Oh are you sure I didn't say more? I haven't reposted everything. Stop embarrassing yourself.

Nobody's playing your game anymore. You've been dismissed as a whelp. Bye.

 

[ChrisL]

The list of murderers using hi cap magazines is extremely long, while there are no examples I know of anyone needing one for defense. I guess you want to keep the bad guys very well armed.

Your laws won't disarm the bad guys, dumbass. The same crime could have been accomplished with 10 round magazines which take only 3 seconds to change out. That's why this lawsuit will fail, the greed addled plaintiffs not being able to demonstrate that an assault rifle is the only weapon capable of killing that many people.

Idiot responding to phantom post.

Pretty pathetic when you can't keep track of your own thread.

No wonder we all missed it. That's not even a position or a proposal, just an opinion that they should sue and you don't like hi cap magazines. Are you saying they should be illegal? Just what the hell are you saying?

I don't think Brain has thought anything through at all, and that all of his responses are simply knee jerk reactions.

Says the person who was arguing against things I was going to restrict without knowing what those things were....

I was arguing with you about your wish to put restrictions on ammunition. I am curious to know what other restrictions you would like to put on our rights.

I see that you still have not done so. That's curious.

 

[Brain357]

Your laws won't disarm the bad guys, dumbass. The same crime could have been accomplished with 10 round magazines which take only 3 seconds to change out. That's why this lawsuit will fail, the greed addled plaintiffs not being able to demonstrate that an assault rifle is the only weapon capable of killing that many people.

Idiot responding to phantom post.

Pretty pathetic when you can't keep track of your own thread.

No wonder we all missed it. That's not even a position or a proposal, just an opinion that they should sue and you don't like hi cap magazines. Are you saying they should be illegal? Just what the hell are you saying?

I don't think Brain has thought anything through at all, and that all of his responses are simply knee jerk reactions.

Says the person who was arguing against things I was going to restrict without knowing what those things were....

I was arguing with you about your wish to put restrictions on ammunition. I am curious to know what other restrictions you would like to put on our rights.

I see that you still have not done so. That's curious.

You have already admitted you had no idea what you were arguing. Should I bump that one?

 

[Brain357]

The list of murderers using hi cap magazines is extremely long, while there are no examples I know of anyone needing one for defense. I guess you want to keep the bad guys very well armed.

Your laws won't disarm the bad guys, dumbass. The same crime could have been accomplished with 10 round magazines which take only 3 seconds to change out. That's why this lawsuit will fail, the greed addled plaintiffs not being able to demonstrate that an assault rifle is the only weapon capable of killing that many people.

Idiot responding to phantom post.

Pretty pathetic when you can't keep track of your own thread.

No wonder we all missed it. That's not even a position or a proposal, just an opinion that they should sue and you don't like hi cap magazines. Are you saying they should be illegal? Just what the hell are you saying?

Oh are you sure I didn't say more? I haven't reposted everything. Stop embarrassing yourself.

Nobody's playing your game anymore. You've been dismissed as a whelp. Bye.

And you've been proven a moron who has no idea what he is talking about. Bravo!