Gun Control Advocates Say Newtown Ruling Is Bad Precedent !
- Thread starter GOYABEAN
- Start date
Phazer
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Wait, you mean the criminal who killed his mother and stole her firearms to commit murder? Yup...it was the inanimate object's fault.
Dr. Evil
20×102mm Vulcan
It is setting a bad precedent if you are a liberal, snowflake, progressive, afraid of your own shadow, anti-gun dip shit.
Bob
6.5 Creedmoor
They can say what they want. My rights still trump their dead.
Quote from the article:
"They say a judge’s decision last year to dismiss a wrongful-death lawsuit against the rifle’s maker would set a bad precedent that could be used by gun makers to fight similar lawsuits."
Thats exacty why the judges decision is the ONLY decision. If this were allowed, every gun maker on earth would be gone within 12 months.
"They say a judge’s decision last year to dismiss a wrongful-death lawsuit against the rifle’s maker would set a bad precedent that could be used by gun makers to fight similar lawsuits."
Thats exacty why the judges decision is the ONLY decision. If this were allowed, every gun maker on earth would be gone within 12 months.
I stand by my logical point of unintended consequences.
Every SINGLE time a drunk driver kills someone, Ford/Chevy/Toyota/Honda/dodge etc should all be immediately sued out of existence. How could those manufacturers be so negligent to allow their products to be used by criminals!??!!
That's just one example. There are plenty others,
Very very horrible precedent to set.
GOYABEAN
.950 JDJ
No thank you, very much.
Mr. terzmo
.308 Win
so he should of stole her car and ran the kids down in the playground...then what..they just don't understand a gun is one of many "tools"..plain and simple
Heres the way ot was explained to me by a long time liberal and active anti gun activist.
I brought up the car thing to them and they said basically this.
Cars may be used in crimes where people die, but cars also have many other uses that cause no injury or death. We need cars to work, to travel and to get places we must go for basic needs.
A gun on the other hand has ZERO other NECESSARY uses except to kill in time of war.
Theres plenty of food in the supermarket, so you dont NEED to hunt. The police are a phone call away, so you dont NEED a gun for protection.
Target shooting is not a sport and takes very little skill. Use a bow and arrow if you want a challenge.
That is what was said too me by an active anti gun activist, not just a regular anti gunner. This lady goes out of her way to support her cause.
She says these are the things the antis talk about when they talk during protests.
wirehairfan
.40 S&W
I've met some of them. Ignorant buffoons. This is all about the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Based on the statute, the Court's ruling was absolutely correct.
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - Wikipedia
Bob
6.5 Creedmoor
If they want to rely upon the government for protection, they can rely upon the government for transportation. Take the bus.
They should try telling the International Olympic Committee that target shooting isn't a sport. I'm sure that'll make them drop Trap, Skeet, and the Biathlon from the Olympic games.
I agree 100%.
My response to them was fine, then we should have just one mass produced car with no extras. You dont NEED to go over 65mph, you dont NEED air conditioning, you dont NEED power windows.....etc.
This woman drives a brand new Range Rover of course.......and its WHITE!!!! Freakin biggot!!
Mr. terzmo
.308 Win
Well..then BRA's should be against the law as they serve no purpose . Men have tits and don't wear them so the same for women
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
Every time you get hurt in your home sue the home builder ...
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
FUAC i just hit my Thumb with the damn hammer .. I'm suing Stanley now ..
4excal
.338 Win Mag
And if there was a gun anywhere in that vehicle all we would have heard was "driver had guns in car"
It takes a simple tool not to recognize a tool.
freddy
.308 Win
But sandy hook was a hoax!
Jmac00
.475 A&M Magnum
then they sue the car company, AND if had been drinking, he could also sue the alcohol manufacture. Then the car company could sue the alcohol company, then the alcohol company could countersue to car company and the perpetrator for misuse of it's product. If all that failed, the families could sue the Exxon Mobile for making the fluid that makes the car move
Then the car company and alcohol manufacture can sue the families for child neglect, for allowing their children to be outside where it's an obvious death trap to be in an enclosed playground during school hours
I suppose if I really thought about it, I could make this even more ridiculous~~~but Im only on my third cup of coffee
Catskillkid
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Just don't spill that hot coffee in your lap. Or better yet maybe you should. You can sue McDonald's, Dunkin Donuts, or whoever made it for injuries to your nether regions.
GOYABEAN
.950 JDJ
Don't forget the cup manufacturer
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Yep.
freddy
.308 Win
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
It's easier to deflect the actual facts out there with an Alex Jones video to make yourself feel better then it is to actually read FBI reports and to investigate the so-called victims. There are reports from actual school administrators, law enforcement whistleblowers, ect.
There is a whole thread on the subject here on this very Forum with actual facts that cannot be disputed if you want to educate yourself.
freddy
.308 Win
Fair enough. Thank you for being civil in response to my juvenile post.