"Appeal offers hope for Newtown families in suit against gun companies" "Supporters believe that if the court clears the way for a jury trial, the gun companies’ internal communications — which the companies have fought fiercely to keep private — would surface in discovery, a potentially revealing and damaging glimpse into the industry and how it operates." "It could also chart a legal road map for the survivors and relatives of victims in other mass shootings as they pursue accountability." “It doesn’t make any sense at all that these products are free of liability,” David Wheeler said in a recent interview. “It’s not a level playing field. It’s not American capitalistic business practice as we know it. It’s just not right.” https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nat...F7O/story.html Given that the majority of politicians are gutless when it comes to addressing the inanity of guns in America, getting anything started legislatively is useless, as I've noted, if young kids getting massacred in a schoolroom by semiautomatic weapons didn't produce anything nothing will However, as we see here, directly attacking the gun manufacturers offers an avenue with real potential, and, erases all the bogus employment of the Second Amendment as a counter arguememt. Definitely the way to go, address the problem at its source
Ayuh,.... You said Sensible, which of course it is Not,... The plaintiffs are completely wrong on soo many points,....
Except that it would set a very very bad precedent. Should car manufacturers be held liable for hit and runs? Should knife manufacturers be held liable for stabbings? I would love some common sense gun laws (I am a fan of my own countries system personally) but this is a bad route.
Is this some conspiracy theory? Seriously, this cant be real its too dumb. What do these idiots think "gun company internal communications" are going to show? Do they think they're all conspiring to inject free will altering chemicals into their products? Because otherwise this is just a bullshit attempt to violate freedoms. I know that leftists have long sought for the power to sue gun manufactures when one of their guns kills somebody, but its just a moronic pipe-dream. If laws like that are passed then you open the door to sue any company for anything anybody does. Somebody txt's and drives and rear ends me, I get to sue Apple and AT&T. Somebody spills a bottle of water on the ground and I slip and fall, I get to sue Dasani. Somebody posts something libelous about me on Facebook, I get to sue Facebook ...Dell computers ...Microsoft ...and the ISP. Holy hell, the stupidity of this is beyond moonbat. Leftists need to get these two things through their thick skulls: 1) GUNS don't kill people on their own, it takes a human being's FREE WILL to pull the trigger. 2) WE HAVE A RIGHT TO OWN GUNS AND YOU CANT TAKE THEM SO GET ****ING USED TO IT!
Yeah, but autos aren't produced as their ultimate purpose to kill, and most knives have utility purposes, what practical purpose does a semiautomatic weapon have? It is built to make it possible to kill numbers in seconds. Besides, we do have to purchase liability insurance on autos I think it is good route, perhaps the only route, as I said, legislatively is never going work, even if they got a real start too many special interests would water down any law
Ah, Babe Ruth didn't hit all those home runs without a bat, and, you might have a right, debatable, but no right in the Constitution, none, zero, zilch, is absolute, even Scalia warned against thinking that they were, guns can be legally regulated And did you notice, none of those products you listed in your opening rant are produced with the intial purpose to kill, which semiautomatic guns are
There will never be gun reform. It's a dead issue. If they didn't do anything after Sandy Hook, nothing will be done now or ever. Doesn't matter who is elected.
Yea and bats don't hit balls without a human being swinging them, so ..checkmate on that one. As for the second line, the purpose of a firearm isn't to kill. The purpose of a firearm is to fire a projectile. If the purpose was to kill then each time the trigger were pulled a life would end. But thats not the case is it, and now you see how silly your statement was. Furthermore the function of the product is inconsequential because, again, it takes a free willed human being to use it.
What practical purpose is having a Ferrari when the speed limit is 65mph? It's built to 'potentially' make it possible to kill numbers in seconds, but I've never seen a gun aim and shoot itself. As much as the left dislikes guns, if they're taken away then mass murderers will use bombs. With a bomb everyone is killed all at once. With a gun as soon as the first shot is fired everyone is alerted and at least has a fighting chance. It took many minutes for the Vegas shooter to do what a bomb would have done in a split second. Those extra minutes gave many people a chance to escape, in the Texas church it gave a neighbor an opportunity to confront the madman.
I would have no issue with liability insurance for guns. As for guns, I have a shotgun of my own, and my father and grandfather have many guns, and have never killed a thing with them. Our purpose is for skill shooting at targets. The purpose of them is for whatever you make of it. As I said, I'm for common sense regulations, but going after a Manufacturer for something someone else did with there product is grasping at straws. Many on the left are in fact gun owners and supporters. I'm not for banning guns, but for licensing and required safety training classes. Regardless of the good intentions of many owners, they are still a dangerous object that should be treated as such.
Yeah, it was Babe Ruth.....as stated. Checkmate? Hardly. No, that's it's purpose Yeah, the inventor(s) were sitting around thinking "Wouldn't it be cool if we fire a projectile...you know for shits and giggles". You must be a hell of a shot Do you? Dismissive argument....priceless.
No it was checkmate. And the fact you cant grasp how that went full circle means I checked matted you too. (and I wasn't even trying) #justthatgood
They ought to be able to sue members of congress for refusing to do anything but what the NRA pays them to do.
To protect people with. Cars have been used as weapons - on purpose. Knives have been used as weapons and a knife was made to cut. Baseball bats have been used as weapons. A bat was made to hit. These manufacturers know full well that their products could be used to kill and did nothing about it - because there are laws against killing. And just because the first 20 laws haven't stopped anyone, doesn't mean we should write 20 more after that and 20 more after that. Liability insurance on autos is for accidents not intentional homicides. You kill someone in a car accident and most of the time you're not going to jail. A gun was made to kill - not to commit murder with it.
The bar keeps moving concerning what is defined as "common sense" or "sensible" gun laws. First it was fully auto, then it was assault rifles, now it is semi-auto. Can we please stop pretending liberals want "common sense", and just state what they really want, which is no guns at all. For group of people so against the police, you sure do put a lot of trust in the police to protect you from criminals, murders, and rapists considering you want to ban guns.
How about suing you every time the laws you push create an easy victim for criminals? How about suing congress members who enjoy armed security while working to strip citizens of their right to defend themselves?
Someone breaks into your home to rape your daughter. Do you want to be able to respond in seconds, or would you rather load a musket?
Congress has denied the will of the people at the behest of corporate entities. Individually they need to be held accountable, and that includes POTUS.
There's a reason Ford is never sued when someone drives drunk and runs his F150 into a school bus full of kids - and it doesn't have anything to do with legislation. Want to take a guess as to why?
Because rational, thinking people aren't swayed by fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance, and/or dishonesty.
So Obamas team allowing drug companies to poison more people and achieve record profits should be held accountable? (Prescription drugs in the prescribed dose are twice as deadly as firearms.)
