Want ONE simple law to help curb mass-shootings?

[Little-Acorn]

If we wanted to make a substantial dent with mass shootings (almost impossible to eliminate without reversing the Constitution's 2nd amendment) pass a law that gun manufacturers AND gun vendors can be sued when their product is sold WITHOUT a thorough background and psychological clean bill of health.

So you want to prosecute people who have obeyed the law and done nothing wrong?

Thanks for demonstrating why liberal fanatics such as yourself should never be elected to office.

 

[nat4900]

If we wanted to make a substantial dent with mass shootings (almost impossible to eliminate without reversing the Constitution's 2nd amendment) pass a law that gun manufacturers AND gun vendors can be sued when their product is sold WITHOUT a thorough background and psychological clean bill of health.

So you want to prosecute people who have obeyed the law and done nothing wrong?

Thanks for demonstrating why liberal fanatics such as yourself should never be elected to office.

Well, you ALSO want abortion clinics prosecuted for FOLLOWING the law, isn't it so???

 

[M14 Shooter]

If we wanted to make a substantial dent with mass shootings (almost impossible to eliminate without reversing the Constitution's 2nd amendment) pass a law that gun manufacturers AND gun vendors can be sued when their product is sold WITHOUT a thorough background and psychological clean bill of health.

So you want to prosecute people who have obeyed the law and done nothing wrong?
Thanks for demonstrating why liberal fanatics such as yourself should never be elected to office.

Well, you ALSO want abortion clinics prosecuted for FOLLOWING the law, isn't it so???

Good to see you understand that your idea has no merit.

 

[nat4900]

That's not a solution. How would being able to sue gun manufacturers stop idiots from killing people with guns?

Do you actually think they would stop and say "huh, I better not do this or Glock will be sued"?

NO, that is not the point......My point is that gun manufacturers who are peddling assault weapons NOT for the sake of sport but for the profit regardless of the consequences, SHOULD be sued for negligence.....BUT, they passed a special law to protect themselves EXPECTING that such would happen.

You can sue virtually everyone else BUT gun companies.

Dude are you really this fucking stupid?

You have been told what an assault weapon is and yet you still misuse the term.

Do you think Rawlings manufacturers footballs for the sport of it or for profit?

They (NRA) didn't pass any laws you stupid fuck!

How would having the ability to sue prevent what happened in Oregon?

Asshole....Of course the NRA didn't pass the law.......A BRIBED congress did AFTER the NRA told them waht to do....

How would the ability to be sued would have helped Oregon's incident...Simple, after paying out millions, the gun manufacturers would stop peddling all those products that are SIMPLY meant to kill people.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That's not a solution. How would being able to sue gun manufacturers stop idiots from killing people with guns?

Do you actually think they would stop and say "huh, I better not do this or Glock will be sued"?

NO, that is not the point......My point is that gun manufacturers who are peddling assault weapons NOT for the sake of sport but for the profit regardless of the consequences, SHOULD be sued for negligence.....BUT, they passed a special law to protect themselves EXPECTING that such would happen.

You can sue virtually everyone else BUT gun companies.

Dude are you really this fucking stupid?

You have been told what an assault weapon is and yet you still misuse the term.

Do you think Rawlings manufacturers footballs for the sport of it or for profit?

They (NRA) didn't pass any laws you stupid fuck!

How would having the ability to sue prevent what happened in Oregon?

Asshole....Of course the NRA didn't pass the law.......A BRIBED congress did AFTER the NRA told them waht to do....
How would the ability to be sued would have helped Oregon's incident...Simple, after paying out millions, the gun manufacturers would stop peddling all those products that are SIMPLY meant to kill people.

No manufacturer can be sued for the intentional criminal misuse of his product after said product was illegally acquired by the perpetrator(s) of said crime..
Not one

 

[chikenwing]

Actually, we should always follow what lobbyists push (aka, BRIBE) congress to do (and in some instance, NOT to do) when searching for legislation to curb an abuse of the common welfare and good.

Regarding mass murders, we know that gun manufacturers (and their bought puppet, the NRA) fought and won the right to NOT be sued for the misuse of their deadly products.

If we wanted to make a substantial dent with mass shootings (almost impossible to eliminate without reversing the Constitution's 2nd amendment) pass a law that gun manufacturers AND gun vendors can be sued when their product is sold WITHOUT a thorough background and psychological clean bill of health.

And just how is this vapor of a thought going to do anything,Gun manufactures follow crazies around?
Will they develop thought police? what a stupid ineffective notion!

 

[Silhouette]

Actually, we should always follow what lobbyists push (aka, BRIBE) congress to do (and in some instance, NOT to do) when searching for legislation to curb an abuse of the common welfare and good.

Regarding mass murders, we know that gun manufacturers (and their bought puppet, the NRA) fought and won the right to NOT be sued for the misuse of their deadly products.

If we wanted to make a substantial dent with mass shootings (almost impossible to eliminate without reversing the Constitution's 2nd amendment) pass a law that gun manufacturers AND gun vendors can be sued when their product is sold WITHOUT a thorough background and psychological clean bill of health.

Given nearly every shooter's motive for doing these killings, the only law that should be passed should be that in any mass shooting or killing, the perpetrator's name cannot be mentioned....ever...period. And anyone who does so in major media does jail time mandatory, because just fining them wouldn't work. They'd gladly pay it for the PR advertising fund inflow. Anyone in minor media (social media) gets a mandatory stiff and punitive fine.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Actually, we should always follow what lobbyists push (aka, BRIBE) congress to do (and in some instance, NOT to do) when searching for legislation to curb an abuse of the common welfare and good.

Regarding mass murders, we know that gun manufacturers (and their bought puppet, the NRA) fought and won the right to NOT be sued for the misuse of their deadly products.

If we wanted to make a substantial dent with mass shootings (almost impossible to eliminate without reversing the Constitution's 2nd amendment) pass a law that gun manufacturers AND gun vendors can be sued when their product is sold WITHOUT a thorough background and psychological clean bill of health.

Given nearly every shooter's motive for doing these killings, the only law that should be passed should be that in any mass shooting or killing, the perpetrator's name cannot be mentioned....ever...period.

Liberals will never allow this as it diminishes the freedom of the press.

 

[nat4900]

>> "CHILDREN IN "GAY MARRIAGE" ARE ALWAYS BORN OUTSIDE OF WEDLOCK. THEY WILL NEVER HAVE EITHER A MOTHER OR A FATHER. & MONEY CHANGES HANDS IN THAT ARRANGEMENT. IT IS NOTHING BUT CHILD-TRAFFICKING INTO A CULT"

Well...OFF TOPIC...but bear in mind that Jesus had TWO fathers.

 

[M14 Shooter]

>> "CHILDREN IN "GAY MARRIAGE" ARE ALWAYS BORN OUTSIDE OF WEDLOCK. THEY WILL NEVER HAVE EITHER A MOTHER OR A FATHER. & MONEY CHANGES HANDS IN THAT ARRANGEMENT. IT IS NOTHING BUT CHILD-TRAFFICKING INTO A CULT"
Well...OFF TOPIC...but bear in mind that Jesus had TWO fathers.

No manufacturer can be sued for the intentional criminal misuse of his product after said product was illegally acquired by the perpetrator(s) of said crime..
Not one.
Why do you nee to lie to make your points?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

That's not a solution. How would being able to sue gun manufacturers stop idiots from killing people with guns?

Do you actually think they would stop and say "huh, I better not do this or Glock will be sued"?

NO, that is not the point......My point is that gun manufacturers who are peddling assault weapons NOT for the sake of sport but for the profit regardless of the consequences, SHOULD be sued for negligence.....BUT, they passed a special law to protect themselves EXPECTING that such would happen.

You can sue virtually everyone else BUT gun companies.

Dude are you really this fucking stupid?

You have been told what an assault weapon is and yet you still misuse the term.

Do you think Rawlings manufacturers footballs for the sport of it or for profit?

They (NRA) didn't pass any laws you stupid fuck!

How would having the ability to sue prevent what happened in Oregon?

Asshole....Of course the NRA didn't pass the law.......A BRIBED congress did AFTER the NRA told them waht to do....

How would the ability to be sued would have helped Oregon's incident...Simple, after paying out millions, the gun manufacturers would stop peddling all those products that are SIMPLY meant to kill people.

You said, "they passed a special law to protect themselves", in reference to the NRA and gun manufacturers.

You're living in lala land.

 

[nat4900]

That's not a solution. How would being able to sue gun manufacturers stop idiots from killing people with guns?

Do you actually think they would stop and say "huh, I better not do this or Glock will be sued"?

NO, that is not the point......My point is that gun manufacturers who are peddling assault weapons NOT for the sake of sport but for the profit regardless of the consequences, SHOULD be sued for negligence.....BUT, they passed a special law to protect themselves EXPECTING that such would happen.

You can sue virtually everyone else BUT gun companies.

Dude are you really this fucking stupid?

You have been told what an assault weapon is and yet you still misuse the term.

Do you think Rawlings manufacturers footballs for the sport of it or for profit?

They (NRA) didn't pass any laws you stupid fuck!

How would having the ability to sue prevent what happened in Oregon?

Asshole....Of course the NRA didn't pass the law.......A BRIBED congress did AFTER the NRA told them waht to do....

How would the ability to be sued would have helped Oregon's incident...Simple, after paying out millions, the gun manufacturers would stop peddling all those products that are SIMPLY meant to kill people.

You said, "they passed a special law to protect themselves", in reference to the NRA and gun manufacturers.

You're living in lala land.

YES....the law is the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2005)....

In WA state, a lawsuit made gun manufacturers pay $2.5 million....and they did NOT like it.

So, after the law was passed (thanks to GWB) Wayne La Pierre stated "its a historic piece of legislation and a significant victory for the gun lobby."

 

[M14 Shooter]

In WA state, a lawsuit made gun manufacturers pay $2.5 million....and they did NOT like it.

Cite?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Heh.
Brady Center ordered to pay ammo dealer’s legal fees after failed lawsuit
Brady Center ordered to pay ammo dealer's legal fees after failed lawsuit - Washington Times

 

[nat4900]

BTW. the law...in an unprecedented way...ALSO dismissed all pending lawsuits against the gun manufacturers...Cute, isn't it....A law that was bought with the blood of victims and their families.

 

[M14 Shooter]

BTW. the law...in an unprecedented way...ALSO dismissed all pending lawsuits against the gun manufacturers...Cute, isn't it....A law that was bought with the blood of victims and their families.

No manufacturer can be sued for the intentional criminal misuse of his product after said product was illegally acquired by the perpetrator(s) of said crime..
Not one.
Why do you nee to lie to make your points?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

That's not a solution. How would being able to sue gun manufacturers stop idiots from killing people with guns?

Do you actually think they would stop and say "huh, I better not do this or Glock will be sued"?

NO, that is not the point......My point is that gun manufacturers who are peddling assault weapons NOT for the sake of sport but for the profit regardless of the consequences, SHOULD be sued for negligence.....BUT, they passed a special law to protect themselves EXPECTING that such would happen.

You can sue virtually everyone else BUT gun companies.

Dude are you really this fucking stupid?

You have been told what an assault weapon is and yet you still misuse the term.

Do you think Rawlings manufacturers footballs for the sport of it or for profit?

They (NRA) didn't pass any laws you stupid fuck!

How would having the ability to sue prevent what happened in Oregon?

Asshole....Of course the NRA didn't pass the law.......A BRIBED congress did AFTER the NRA told them waht to do....

How would the ability to be sued would have helped Oregon's incident...Simple, after paying out millions, the gun manufacturers would stop peddling all those products that are SIMPLY meant to kill people.

You said, "they passed a special law to protect themselves", in reference to the NRA and gun manufacturers.

You're living in lala land.

YES....the law is the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2005)....

In WA state, a lawsuit made gun manufacturers pay $2.5 million....and they did NOT like it.

So, after the law was passed (thanks to GWB) Wayne La Pierre stated "its a historic piece of legislation and a significant victory for the gun lobby."

So you admit you made shit up. Good to know.

Please link to that case or provide specifics so I can look at the case and ruling myself. I highly doubt the lawsuit was due to a third party killing someone with one of their firearms.

EDIT:
I think I found it, it was against Bushmaster. Who is on record as saying they settled because of the mounting cost of litigation. They believed it was in the best interest monetarily. There was no admission of liability on their part.

 

[nat4900]

In WA state, a lawsuit made gun manufacturers pay $2.5 million....and they did NOT like it.

Cite?

Bushmaster Firearms Inc. of Windham, Maine, has agreed to pay $550,000 and Bull’s Eye Shooter Supply of Tacoma, Wash. has agreed to pay $2 million to settle families’ lawsuits over the 2002 D.C. sniper shootings.

 

[M14 Shooter]

In WA state, a lawsuit made gun manufacturers pay $2.5 million....and they did NOT like it.

Cite?

Bushmaster Firearms Inc. of Windham, Maine, has agreed to pay $550,000 and Bull’s Eye Shooter Supply of Tacoma, Wash. has agreed to pay $2 million to settle families’ lawsuits over the 2002 D.C. sniper shootings.

Cite?

 

[M14 Shooter]

heh
re: Sandyhook lawsuit:

The lawsuit, filed by the Koskoff Koskoff and Bieder firm in Bridgeport, Conn., alleges that the makers and dealers who handled that particular weapon reasonably should have known it would be used to kill a large number of people because that is exactly what the gun is designed to do.

Sandy Hook lawsuit makes the case that military-style weapons aren't for civilians
This, of course, an outright lie and an unsupportable assertion.

It's a politically attractive argument for backers of gun control laws, but it's hard to see the courts finding liability here based on "negligent entrustment" because there is nothing negligent in the legal sale of a gun. And the killer was not the person who bought the weapon, but her son, a step removed from what a gun seller could reasonably expect.

Imagine that.