Making the claim that the weapons employed didn't serve their purpose by killing as many kids as he wanted? Or that semiautomatic weapons purpose is to kill as many as possible?
Obama judges on the courts will try But if one liberal on the sc goes belly up while trump is president there goes your chances in the courts too
Admit it -- you passed right by the weight of my question I said because you know you have cogent response.
The purpose of semiautos even the ultimate purpose is a matter of opinion and therefore irrelevant. No you do not have to have liability insurance to own a car only to drive one on government owned roads. This is not as you claim sensible it is instead draconian
That is not saying anything, and we are not exchanging on individual rights, which by the way are not absolute
Yep. You can neither prove this purpose, nor the intent of the manufacturer to that end. We all know it, including you.
Not true, as I noted, that is what the case will decide, and the scenario you presented doesn't relate, as I showed you, it did not effect big tobacco, the tobacco companies were still held responsible
OK then... Given the degrees of separation between the manufacturer and the consumer, how can the manufacturer be guilty of negligent entrustment? Do you know what negligent entrustment is? Did your talking points packet include the definition?
I was responding to this: "If it were up to me, all guns besides a revolver, a shotgun and a hunting rifle would be illegal. Limit capacity to six rounds only. All other weapons would be banned and anyone holding them today would have 6 months to turn them in. Beyond that, its a felony. But it's not up to me, it's up to the VP's of Marketing at all the gun companies." Its not up to that poster, and its not up to the VPs of marketing either. Its up to the individual citizen. I didn't say they were absolute. I said it was up to the individual what they choose to own, not the marketing reps and not some statist Not only that, but you're talking about the right to keep and bear arms: Therefore you are talking about individual rights.
But the “negligent entrustment" doesn't apply in the newtown case because the gun wasn't sold to Adam Lanza. It was sold to his mother.
It's -your- claim, son. Your response, above, only illustrates an awareness of your inability to back up what you said with anything of substance. You cannot show what you said to be true; absent this illustration you have nothing. What semiautomatic weapons did the military buy?
What? For real? Then you tell us, what is the purpose of semiautomatic weapons if it is not to kill as many people as possible in a short period of time. Forget the semantical bait and switch, and simply inform us of what you think is the purpose of these weapons
The one difference is that people bought prescription drugs thinking it was good for them. Those supporting the NRA are getting what they paid for. There is a lot more spent on pushing gun control. There was no law that would deny firearm ownership to violent domestic abusers. As far as the opiate epidemic, it is another example of failed laws. No industry is more regulated and the product still falls into the wrong hands. Everyone who wants drugs is getting them. Everyone who wants a gun has one already.
Yes. You made a claim about the intended purpose and use of a semi-automatic rifle. Responsibility lie with -you- to prove this assertion true. Please begin. And THEN you can tell us which semiautomatic weapons were bought by the military.
What purpose does a semi-automatic nail gun have? This weapon can fire 5 projectiles in a second from a 100 round magazine. This is just another modern tool---better than pounding with a hammer. Common technology we have today. Semi-auto rifles haven't changed much in 75 years. They make more sense than firing a single shot at a time. There are dozens of shooting sports that use semi-auto rifles handguns and shotguns, and millions of honest citizens have them. I realize in the minds of socialists and communists, that only the police, military and the ruling elite should have guns, and the idea of an armed citizenry deeply offends them. The only hope for such people is for them to feel safe is to move to North Korea, Cuba, Communist China....
And I did, did you need another to spelled out the intended purpose of a bicycle before you knew what it was, it's called common sense Still waiting on what you think is the purpose of semiautomatic weapons
Sure, to drive nails, doesn't work well in shooting people, you know there is a reason individuals don't attempt mass murders with nail guns
Big tobacco hid the health issues associated with tobacco use. Do you think gun manufacturers are hiding some performance issues associated with their product? Bad analagy
If you read the article you'd know that is one of the reasons they are pursuing the lawsuit to also include the gun manufactures' marketing practices
I was showing the parallels that guns have with most every other technology on the planet. You can't put the genie back in the bottle, and banning guns you don't like because bad people use them does not work. If gun control laws worked, then Chicago would not have hundreds of murders a year all done with illegal guns. If gun control laws that: prohibit all privately owned gun stores, ban all military guns and ammo, and required the state police to sell them---then you would have Mexico. A violent Narco-State over-run with gangs, each with their illegal guns: How would you fix Mexico's gang and gun problem? With another worthless gun law?
No, you did not. Nowhere did you prove your claim as to the intended purpose and use of semiautomatic rifles. You made a claim; responsibility is on you to prove your claim true. So far, you got nuthin'. Perhaps you should run back and get an update on your talking points.
First, every "technology on the planet" was produced for a particular purpose, to meet a specific need, nail guns to drive nails, semiautomatic weapons to kill, no way parallel Second, NRA propaganda fed to gullible gun owners, no one is banning nor confiscating guns, especially here where the law suit has absolutely nothing to do with individual gun ownership Third, Chicago is the wild wild west because Indiana, with few gun restrictions, is only a twenty minute drive away, any aspiring entrepreneur with a car trunk could make a killing And lastly, again the NRA myth, no one anywhere talked about "prohibit all privately owned gun stores, ban all military guns and ammo, and required the state police to sell them," your letting your paranoia get the best of you
