SmilinEd 364 Posted December 15, 2014 Report Share Posted December 15, 2014 http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/15/sandy-hook-parents-sue-bushmaster-you-sold-weapon-of-choice-for-mass-murderers.html Quote Link to post Share on other sites
haugpatr 972 Posted December 15, 2014 Report Share Posted December 15, 2014 Their dead kids do not trump my constitutional rights. Fuck them! 7 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
patriot 7,197 Posted December 15, 2014 Report Share Posted December 15, 2014 That's it... Ring that cash register! Sue sue sue. Dumbasses. hopefully, they're sterile and can't reproduce any more self-entitled idiots. Wanna sue? Sue the school for not keeping the kids safe, or sue the .gov for making schools a target rich environment by disarming everyone there. That at least makes sense. 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
XD45 7,124 Posted December 15, 2014 Report Share Posted December 15, 2014 Super Dyke! I'm sorry, what was the story about? Oh yeah, lawsuit. Warning! Extremely harsh and uncaring facts to follow. Your goddamn kids lives are not worth more than my freedom. Oh shit, did he just say that? And yes, my life is not worth more than your freedom either. So I'm sorry your kids were killed by a nutcase. But if you think to use that as an excuse to infringe other's freedom then fuck you. If you think unarmed people are more safe then look to Nazi Germany, Cambodia, Russia, etc. If you are horrified by what a single psycho can do with a rifle, check out what an unchecked tyrant WILL do to unarmed people. Again, sorry for your loss. Now shut the fuck up. 7 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SmilinEd 364 Posted December 16, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2014 Anybody...? The weapons used in the attack were legally purchased and were registered to the gunman's mother, two law enforcement officials said. Two 9mm handguns were recovered inside the school. An AR-15-type rifle also was found at the scene, but there were conflicting reports Friday night whether it had been used in the shooting. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/15/15907407-elementary-school-massacre-20-children-among-28-killed-in-connecticut-slaughter?lite= 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
HB of CJ 1,263 Posted December 16, 2014 Report Share Posted December 16, 2014 Excellent answers already given and thank you. Two things; First is that the grieving parents should, like already said before me better, be suing the School System/district for not providing a safe educational atmosphere and environment. Not the gun maker, distributer and retailer. Two; All the police officers, elected and appointed, who are harping this bull shit should instantly be fired for violating the Constitution Of The United States AND their sworn oaths of employment to defend same. Then they need to be investigated, tried, convicted and sentenced to prison. Why? Treason against the Constitution. About 20 years with Big Bubba and his boy friends seems about right. Seems pretty straight forward to me. Why is this not happening? Until it does happen, we have no accountability for future police behavior like this. HB of CJ (old coot) PS; I certainly hope the law suit falls flat on its face due to total lack of merit ... then a massive counter suit by all concerned that eventually works its way through the courts and eventually wins. Then those who tried this legal bull shit will have to pay for 1000 years. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
poolingmyignorance 2,191 Posted December 16, 2014 Report Share Posted December 16, 2014 It's so nice to see people put a price tag on their kids. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bigtwin 219 Posted December 16, 2014 Report Share Posted December 16, 2014 I whole heartedly think this is dumb as shit, to put a price tag on your dead children, and to blame a product for their death rather than a person who caused it. Would these fuck tards sue GM if their child was ran over? I doubt it! On another note, aren't there laws now that protect gun manufactures from wrongful death law suits? I thought I remembered reading of this some years back. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
G O B 3,516 Posted December 16, 2014 Report Share Posted December 16, 2014 When a drunk rubs your kids over, can you sue Toyota? 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
thebuns1 4,323 Posted December 16, 2014 Report Share Posted December 16, 2014 Lol. I don't buy the whole sandy hook thing, but if it went down the way they say, how the fuck is it bushmasters fault? There is no amount of dead children that will trump the liberties of a populace. The acts of a few should not dictate the future of the many. These people can fuck off along with their lawsuit and lawyers. They are part of the problem and not the solution. 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DogMan 2,343 Posted December 16, 2014 Report Share Posted December 16, 2014 (edited) The gun functioned exactly as it was supposed to, it was the operator that was defective. NEWS FLASH! Guns are supposed to kill. Edited December 16, 2014 by DogMan Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Cobra 76 two 2,677 Posted December 16, 2014 Report Share Posted December 16, 2014 What a bunch of fucking garbage. This stupid hoax to try and get ARs off the street was a serious enough crime to begin with. It never happened. Now they want to start gold diggin' too?? 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ronin38 2,117 Posted December 16, 2014 Report Share Posted December 16, 2014 (edited) STUPID!! Obviously it was the BOOOLITS that killed the children, not the gun!! Sue the ammo manufacturers!! This lawyer is a fucking idiot for even filing this bullshit. He should take 10 seconds and research the laws regarding manufacturers and their products. ie: Alcohol and Vehicle manufacturers can not be held liable for drunk drivers. Cell phone manufacturers can not be held liable for people who text/talk and cause accidents. Etc., etc, ad nausuem... Of course, on the other hand, are the manufacturers who just settle out of court rather than fight the BS lawsuits, because it's easier and cheaper for them in the long run, thereby setting the precedent... and so the BS lawsuits continue. One of my "favorite" examples is the lady who got drunk off her ass, drove off in her Toyota pickup without her seatbelt on, ran off the road into a ditch and trees, was ejected from the vehicle during the crash and severely injured. She sued Toyota because the door came open during the crash. (No word on if she even had it latched all the way...) Toyota SETTLED instead of fighting it!?!?! Fucking idiots. Edited December 16, 2014 by Ronin38 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
elvis christ 451 Posted December 16, 2014 Report Share Posted December 16, 2014 Wasn't bushmaster started when Colt was getting sued all the time and quit selling guns to the civilian market? Kinda strange. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Spartacus 1,619 Posted December 16, 2014 Report Share Posted December 16, 2014 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms ActFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was passed by the U.S. Senate on July 29, 2005, by a vote of 65-31. On October 20, 2005, it was passed by the House of Representatives 283 in favor and 144 opposed. It was signed into law on October 26, 2005, by President George W. Bush and became Public Law 109-92. The National Rifle Association thanked President Bush for signing the Act, for which it had lobbied, describing it as, "...the most significant piece of pro-gun legislation in twenty years into law."[1] In the years before passage of the act, victims of firearms violence in the United States had successfully sued manufacturers and dealers for negligence on the grounds that they should have foreseen that their products would be diverted to criminal use.[2] The purpose of the act is to prevent firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for negligence when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products (i.e. automobiles, appliances, power tools, etc.) are held responsible. A similar measure had been rejected by the Senate on March 2, 2004 after it had been combined with an extension to the assault weapons ban into a single piece of legislation. The final bill passed only after an amendment was added that mandated safety locks on handguns and after the assault weapons ban renewal had been prevented from being added onto the bill. The PLCAA is codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901-7903. After the 2012 Aurora, Colorado and Sandy Hook, Connecticut shooting incidents, a renewed effort has been mounted to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act to make it possible for victims of gun violence to sue firearms manufacturers and dealers on a broader array of grounds, although these efforts have proven mostly fruitless.[2][3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act 7 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Shandlanos 1,470 Posted December 16, 2014 Report Share Posted December 16, 2014 The gun functioned exactly as it was supposed to, it was the operator that was defective. NEWS FLASH! Guns are supposed to kill. Disagree. Firearms are designed to reliably expel projectiles. Some are certainly designed for use in combat - and in that sense, are intended to assist human beings to kill. But ultimately, it's the operator who chooses what to throw lead at - a gun is no more designed to kill than a spoon is designed specifically for pudding. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ronin38 2,117 Posted December 16, 2014 Report Share Posted December 16, 2014 The gun functioned exactly as it was supposed to, it was the operator that was defective. NEWS FLASH! Guns are supposed to kill. Disagree. Firearms are designed to reliably expel projectiles. Some are certainly designed for use in combat - and in that sense, are intended to assist human beings to kill. But ultimately, it's the operator who chooses what to throw lead at - a gun is no more designed to kill than a spoon is designed specifically for making you fat. Fixed! 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DLT 1,646 Posted December 16, 2014 Report Share Posted December 16, 2014 Maybe now we will actually see some sort of evidence? Maybe? Possibly? Oh hell no! If anything emerges out of this that proves the country was lied to in order to push an agenda this suit will suddenly vanish. I'm not saying nothing happened, but I don't think we know the truth. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
storm6490 2,768 Posted December 16, 2014 Report Share Posted December 16, 2014 (edited) False flag and now a fictional trust set up to sue corporations that are protected under a 2005 commerce law. The satanists must have run out of money already. This thing wont get far. Excuse me, an estate. Edited December 16, 2014 by Stryker0946 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SmilinEd 364 Posted December 16, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2014 Super Dyke..!!!!! Gawd isn't that the truth...!!!! Nasty..!!!! She's holding that AR like its her new strap on Quote Link to post Share on other sites
thebuns1 4,323 Posted December 16, 2014 Report Share Posted December 16, 2014 Super Dyke..!!!!! She's holding that AR like its her new strap on It is her new strap on. She's going to use it to try and fuck all us gun owners. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DogMan 2,343 Posted December 16, 2014 Report Share Posted December 16, 2014 The gun functioned exactly as it was supposed to, it was the operator that was defective. NEWS FLASH! Guns are supposed to kill. Disagree. Firearms are designed to reliably expel projectiles. Some are certainly designed for use in combat - and in that sense, are intended to assist human beings to kill. But ultimately, it's the operator who chooses what to throw lead at - a gun is no more designed to kill than a spoon is designed specifically for pudding. I didn't mean guns are supposed to kill because they are specifically designed to, I meant that the fact that someone died as a result of being in the path of said projectile expelled by said weapon is perfectly consistent with how the weapon was designed to function. Just like if a speeding truck runs you over, the truck was not designed in any way to kill you but it's "supposed" to kill you, or maybe a better word is "expected" to kill you if it hits you but in fact the truck is functioning just as it was designed to do........ with a faulty operator. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
G O B 3,516 Posted December 16, 2014 Report Share Posted December 16, 2014 The AR-15 was a CIVILIAN gun BEFORE the M-16 was a MILITARY gun. They cannot get any of the FACTS straight! 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bigtwin 219 Posted December 17, 2014 Report Share Posted December 17, 2014 The AR-15 was a CIVILIAN gun BEFORE the M-16 was a MILITARY gun. They cannot get any of the FACTS straight! Facts be damned to liberals with an agenda! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.