One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Sandy Hook Massacre Families Given Permission to Sue Gun Makers in Landmark Decision!
Page <<first <prev 5 of 12 next> last>>
Apr 15, 2016 08:08:41   #
rebob14
 


Makes perfect progressive sense: Unqualified mother gives shooting lessons to mentally ill son who is off his meds due to lack of proper supervision and the weapon is guilty and must be denied to sane, responsible gun owners. I'm starting to believe the recent assessments that the progressive mind lacks the capacity for reason.

Reply
Apr 15, 2016 08:12:45   #
rebob14
 
Raylan Wolfe wrote:
The lawsuit is saying that Remington and the other defendants "unethically, oppressively, immorally and unscrupulously promoted the assaultive qualities and military uses of AR-15's to civilian purchasers"!


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/sandy-hook-massacre-families-given-permission-to-sue-gun-makers-in-landmark-legal-ruling-a6984826.html!


Assualtive qualities??? Military uses??? The military version of the platform is fully automatic and can also fire grenades. Civilians won't find it at Cabelas.

Reply
Apr 15, 2016 08:14:43   #
rebob14
 
moldyoldy wrote:
I would normally say the manufacturers are innocent, but in this case there is a gray area. Was this an automatic, was it modified, was it marketed to the public as an automatic?

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/gun-manufacturer-moves-sandy-hook-lawsuit-federal-court


No, No, and No.

Reply
 
 
Apr 15, 2016 08:24:55   #
Kevyn
 
Liberty Tree wrote:
If it can be proven the manufacturers broke some laws that contributed to the shooting then fine, if not there should be no liability.

The burden in a civil lawsuit is not a violation of the law proven beyond reasonable doubt, it is mearly neglegance proven by a preponderance of evidence. In otherwise if I create a situation without violating criminal law or ordinance that a reasonable person would believe is likely to cause grievous injury or death to third parties I can be held liable in civil court, and ordered to compensate victims for their losses. This is a big part of the basis of our system of tort law.

Reply
Apr 15, 2016 08:39:09   #
Liberty Tree
 
Kevyn wrote:
The burden in a civil lawsuit is not a violation of the law proven beyond reasonable doubt, it is mearly neglegance proven by a preponderance of evidence. In otherwise if I create a situation without violating criminal law or ordinance that a reasonable person would believe is likely to cause grievous injury or death to third parties I can be held liable in civil court, and ordered to compensate victims for their losses. This is a big part of the basis of our system of tort law.


I know all of that, but this case will be more about emotion than fact. A legally manufactured, legally sold product misused by someone does not make the manufacturer liable but that will not matter. Emotions will prevail.

Reply
Apr 15, 2016 08:39:18   #
Ox
 
Moldy; it is already illegal to manufacture and sell a fully auto weapon to anyone without a license to own such a gun. If it was modified, Remington did not do it, and never has any manufacturer advertised any rifle as "automatic" for sale to the public. SEMI-AUTOMATIC means that you fire one round every time you pull the trigger--far from the same as automatic. These semi's are what the general public can buy. Even a bolt action rifle would do what the kid in Sandy Hook did. Remington did nothing wrong.

There are makers of after-market kits that cause a weapon to "bump fire", which means that the recoil will cause the trigger to trip as long as you hold the weapon properly, but even that is not automatic.

Reply
Apr 15, 2016 08:49:17   #
buffalo Loc: Texas
 
Raylan Wolfe wrote:
Wrong again glade slipper, 100's of gun shows are not even close, to the thousands held each year! And to suggest that you have have knowledge of all the gun dealers actions at the ones you do attend is ridiculous!

Investigators Document Repeat Illegal Sales at Gun Shows!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/07/AR2009100702261.html



Private sale loophole! A good way for terrorists to purchase weapons!

http://smartgunlaws.org/universal-gun-background-checks-policy-summary/

According to an undercover investigation 62% of online firearm sellers agree to sell a weapon to a person who has said they cannot pass a background check!
Wrong again glade slipper, 100's of gun shows are ... (show quote)



That is NOT what this frivolous suit is about. There’s one fact that the plaintiffs and you moonbat gun grabbers have ignored, as did CNN when they recently interviewed the parents. Adam Lanza didn’t buy the gun from Remington or Bushmaster, and it wasn’t purchased off the shelves of a gun store. He stole it from his mother before he killed her. So how can the gun manufacturer’s marketing make them responsible for neglectful entrustment? It’s just one more reason why this ridiculous lawsuit needs to be thrown out. And it eventually will be tossed. This isn't the first time that the victims of gun violence have tried to shift blame onto firearm manufacturers but, to date, no one has ever succeeded.

Reply
Apr 15, 2016 09:15:30   #
astrolite
 


I'm assuming that the usurper is sending in a specially appointed judge? Maybe even a SCOUS hopeful?? At least send in a real judge, not just a one with fake college credits! Then of course the plaintiffs have to prove their standing to sue. Calling themselves "stakeholders" (an invented term used by environmentals in their scams) won't suffice! REAL witnesses can be called in.........uh oh, Do they think all of the evidence is destroyed by now.....sort of like when Hillary ordered the FBI to bulldoze the site at Waco? Notice that the Sandy Hook school was only being used for storage for three years before being used for a staged crisis rehersal. Then quickly torn down, only after forcing the demolition workers to sign a secrecy contract? As all of the people involved are ACTORS, this should be interesting! The local communist party can furnish the jury.

Reply
Apr 15, 2016 09:40:44   #
Loki Loc: Georgia
 
Sons of Liberty wrote:
Why does every asshat liberal think AR stands for assault rifle.
You fuggin' people are real idiotic jerks.


Modern Sporting Rifle Facts

The modern sporting rifle, based on the AR-15 platform, is widely misunderstood. Why? Confusion exists because while these rifles may cosmetically look like military rifles, they do not function the same way. Also, groups wanting to ban these rifles have for years purposely or through ignorance spread misinformation about them to aid their cause.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation asks you to be an informed gun owner and to use the following facts to correct misconceptions about these rifles. Remember, that if AR-15-style modern sporting rifles are banned, your favorite traditional-looking hunting or target shooting semi-automatic firearm could be banned, too.

AR-15-platform rifles are among the most popular firearms being sold. They are today's modern sporting rifle.

The AR in "AR-15" rifle stands for "ArmaLite rifle," after the company that developed it in the 1950s. "AR" does NOT stand for "assault rifle" or "automatic rifle."

AR-15-style rifles are NOT "assault weapons" or "assault rifles." An assault rifle is fully automatic -- a machine gun. Automatic firearms have been severely restricted from civilian ownership since 1934.

If someone calls an AR-15-style rifle an "assault weapon," he or she either supports banning these firearms or does not understand their function and sporting use, or both. Please correct them. "Assault weapon" is a political term created by California anti-gun legislators to ban some semi-automatic rifles there in the 1980s.

AR-15-style rifles look like military rifles, such as the M-16, but function like other semi-automatic civilian sporting firearms, firing only one round with each pull of the trigger.

Versions of modern sporting rifles are legal to own in all 50 states, provided the purchaser passes the mandatory FBI background check required for all retail firearm purchasers.

Since the 19th century, civilian sporting rifles have evolved from their military predecessors. The modern sporting rifle simply follows that tradition.

These rifles' accuracy, reliability, ruggedness and versatility serve target shooters and hunters well. They are true all-weather firearms.

Chamberings include .22, .223 (5.56 x 45mm), 6.8 SPC, .308, .450 Bushmaster and about a dozen others. Upper receivers for pistol calibers such as 9 mm, .40, and .45 are available. There are even .410 shotgun versions.

These rifles are used for many different types of hunting, from varmint to big game. And they're used for target shooting in the national matches.

AR-15-style rifles are no more powerful than other hunting rifles of the same caliber and in most cases are chambered in calibers less powerful than common big-game hunting cartridges like the 30-06 Springfield and .300 Win. Mag.

The AR-15 platform is modular. Owners like being able to affix different "uppers" (the barrel and chamber) to the "lower" (the grip, stock).

And, they are a lot of fun to shoot!
Why does every asshat liberal think AR stands for ... (show quote)


Incidentally, It has been illegal to manufacture selective fire firearms for the civilian market since the mid 1980's. AR-15 are not manufactured for the military as the suit claims. This is a bullshit lawsuit, filed by activists who have no idea what they are talking about, who allege numerous lies in their suit. It will go exactly nowhere. An anti-gun judge who obviously knows nothing about the product in question actually gave standing to plaintiffs who lied through their teeth. Talk about a tempest in a teapot.

Reply
Apr 15, 2016 09:44:00   #
Loki Loc: Georgia
 
Kevyn wrote:
The burden in a civil lawsuit is not a violation of the law proven beyond reasonable doubt, it is mearly neglegance proven by a preponderance of evidence. In otherwise if I create a situation without violating criminal law or ordinance that a reasonable person would believe is likely to cause grievous injury or death to third parties I can be held liable in civil court, and ordered to compensate victims for their losses. This is a big part of the basis of our system of tort law.


Cool. So file suit against the estate of Adam Lanza's mama. She is the one who allowed her weapon to be stolen. This is like saying that Ford is liable if a car thief steals one of their legally manufactured and purchased vehicles and negligently kills someone. while driving drunk.

Reply
Apr 15, 2016 09:46:57   #
the waker Loc: 11th freest nation
 
Raylan Wolfe wrote:
A can of worms that needs to opened!

Gun shows and terrorists!

At over 5000 gun shows each year, in 32 states, criminals and terrorists are allowed to purchase firearms from private gun dealers without an ID or background check!




In what world, that has got to be the most uninformed statement ever made on this forum.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/01/28/comedian-goes-undercover-to-test-out-the-gun-show-loophole-watch-how-gun-sellers-react-to-requests/

Reply
Apr 15, 2016 09:57:13   #
the waker Loc: 11th freest nation
 


Spoons making people fat again?



Reply
Apr 15, 2016 10:05:07   #
Loki Loc: Georgia
 
the waker wrote:


In 2014, there were more than 76,000 stops on gun purchases reported. Of these, the BATFE prosecuted less than 100, and obtained less than 30 convictions. The firearms manufacturers are not the ones who need to be sued.

Reply
Apr 15, 2016 10:06:17   #
Kevyn
 
Loki wrote:
Cool. So file suit against the estate of Adam Lanza's mama. She is the one who allowed her weapon to be stolen. This is like saying that Ford is liable if a car thief steals one of their legally manufactured and purchased vehicles and negligently kills someone. while driving drunk.
If Ford knowingly manufactured the car with features that made it an unnecessary risk to people it hit or deliberately marketed it to drive while drunk or a dealer sold it to someone who was drunk when they took possession of the car there would be potential liability issues. I would bet that a marketing campaign aimed at gangsters or naming a weapon an anahaliator, street sweeper, the judge or executioner implying its extralegal use could bring up issues of liability that would stick.

Reply
Apr 15, 2016 10:15:50   #
BDOG
 
Liberty Tree wrote:
If it can be proven the manufacturers broke some laws that contributed to the shooting then fine, if not there should be no liability.


Can Opera sue the silverware company for making her fat?

Reply
Page <<first <prev 5 of 12 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.