• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies [W:435]

Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

TurtleDude said:
How is the gun maker responsible for whether the owner safeguarded it? Get a clue-if someone is willing to KILL HIS OWN MOTHER to get a gun not much is going to deter him.

How is the maker supposed to guarantee what you want? that's the duty of the government isn't it.

your last sentence is psychobabble BTW and makes no sense whatsoever
Click to expand...

the gun maker is responsible for selling it in the first place, much like a heroin dealer is responsible or a smallpox dealer. You're responsible for what you produce and make available to others. The government doesn't need to do anything since the courts will take care of it and declare the obvious - the 2A only covers 18th century muskets in militias for national defense
 
Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

EMNofSeattle said:
It is attempt to circumvent a pro second amendment congress by suing gun makers. This suit has no merit. By not granting the dismissal motion the judge wants the gun company to spend millions winning at trial. The idea being, finance enough lawsuits that gun makers have to raise prices or go out of business. Thus constricting supply and accomplishing de facto control
Click to expand...

Ah.
Given that the gun lobby can probably outspend any individual suit (is there an opposing organization, like an anti-NRA?) this ounds like a brief flash in the pan and not worth the emotional vitriol. Especially if counter-suits are applied.
Maybe it's already accomplished it's purpose by getting the buzz.
 
Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

chromium said:
good, down with the NRA and their child murdering ways!

i don't see how anyone can be against abortion and support this "right" to easily massacre 20 children btw
Click to expand...

Should we then sue ford, GM , Toyota and the rest if someone kills your family member with a car?
Should we sue Stanley if someone kills your family member with a hammer?
How about Nike if someone kicked your family member to death?
 
Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

TurtleDude said:
or better yet, how they can control someone being murdered by someone that was never the buyer of the gun. Lanza did not buy the gun. It was his mother and how the hell was Bushmaster to know that Mrs Lanza had a nutso son. that isn't asked on the FEDERAL FORM. what the turds doing the suing are claiming is that gun should not be allowed to be sold to ANY CIVILIAN but since it is they are trying to backdoor a ban into the law
Click to expand...

stop pretending that you would remotely accept the federal form asking if she had a psychotic son living with her, any more than you accept any background checks to begin with. It's obvious that you get off to these stories
 
Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

chromium said:
the gun maker is responsible for selling it in the first place, much like a heroin dealer is responsible or a smallpox dealer. You're responsible for what you produce and make available to others. The government doesn't need to do anything since the courts will take care of it and declare the obvious - the 2A only covers 18th century muskets in militias for national defense
Click to expand...

so you are admitting you want to ban gun sales. OK but that is unconstitutional.

the rest of your comment borders on idiocy
 
Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

chromium said:
stop pretending that you would remotely accept the federal form asking if she had a psychotic son living with her, any more than you accept any background checks to begin with. It's obvious that you get off to these stories
Click to expand...

so you believe in guilt by association or bills of attainder. any other constitutional rights you wish to get rid of?
 
Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

SocialD said:
Should we then sue ford, GM , Toyota and the rest if someone kills your family member with a car?
Should we sue Stanley if someone kills your family member with a hammer?
How about Nike if someone kicked your family member to death?
Click to expand...

i have long thought that cars for personal use should be illegal so yes, but fortunately autonomous cars will be mandatory soon enough and eliminate the human error

although all the analogies are preposterous since the only purpose of a military weapon is murder, unlike those other things
 
Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

TurtleDude said:
so you believe in guilt by association or bills of attainder. any other constitutional rights you wish to get rid of?
Click to expand...

so you admit that your suggestion to blame the government instead of the gun makers was simply two faced

what exactly do you think a background check should entail? "Do you intend to commit murder this with weapon"? Is even that infringing on their "rights"?
 
Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

chromium said:
i have long thought that cars for personal use should be illegal so yes, but fortunately autonomous cars will be mandatory soon enough and eliminate the human error

although all the analogies are preposterous since the only purpose of a military weapon is murder, unlike those other things
Click to expand...

wow, just wow.

so you also believe that military operations are murder? given that there are over 20 million AR type weapons in the USA and only a few are ever used for "murder" doesn't that sort of shoot down your hysterical claims?
 
Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

TurtleDude said:
so you are admitting you want to ban gun sales. OK but that is unconstitutional.

the rest of your comment borders on idiocy
Click to expand...

no, i am fine with selling 18th century muskets to state-sponsored militias. That seems a reasonable and constitutional compromise

nonetheless, i'm sure you'll dismiss me as another "sodomist bannite"
 
Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

chromium said:
so you admit that your suggestion to blame the government instead of the gun makers was simply two faced

what exactly do you think a background check should entail? "Do you intend to commit murder this with weapon"? Is even that infringing on their "rights"?
Click to expand...

You just don't get it do you? the BUYER OF THE GUN IN QUESTION harmed NO ONE. the weapon was stolen from her after she was MURDERED

this sort of silly argument is what happens when one's argument is based on your hatred of the politics of people who own guns rather than any semblance of an understanding of the issue
 
Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

chromium said:
no, i am fine with selling 18th century muskets to state-sponsored militias. That seems a reasonable and constitutional compromise
Click to expand...

how were gays treated in that time period since you want constitutional rights to stop at say the 1790s?

burning at the stake? drowning or being pariahs in society?

that has to be one of the most stupid constitutional bogus arguments going. Using your silly standards, the internet is not protected by the first amendment nor is any religion that was formed after the constitution. Nor any free speech uttered after the signing of the bill of rights?
 
Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

TurtleDude said:
You just don't get it do you? the BUYER OF THE GUN IN QUESTION harmed NO ONE. the weapon was stolen from her after she was MURDERED

this sort of silly argument is what happens when one's argument is based on your hatred of the politics of people who own guns rather than any semblance of an understanding of the issue
Click to expand...

yes and if the background check ASKED if she had a mentally ill person living with her, she would not have been given the weapon, she would not have been murdered, and those kids would still be alive

but even that is too much an 'infringement' for your extremism
 
Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

Somerville said:
This will end up before the Supreme Court. I wonder how they will rule
Click to expand...

Yes, guns should be taken away. After all, that gun decided on it's own to shoot some people....... Wait, no it didn't.

Seriously, here's the deal. If we are going to take the guns away, then let's go all the way and ban other things that are bad..... Like chopped liver. Eaten to excess, it can kill a person. Yea, I know. It's silly. So was the judge's decision.

I'm OK with background checks, though.
 
Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

TurtleDude said:
how were gays treated in that time period since you want constitutional rights to stop at say the 1790s?

burning at the stake? drowning or being pariahs in society?

that has to be one of the most stupid constitutional bogus arguments going. Using your silly standards, the internet is not protected by the first amendment nor is any religion that was formed after the constitution. Nor any free speech uttered after the signing of the bill of rights?
Click to expand...

hah, it's within the boundaries the 2A establishes itself - "a well regulated militia". There is no such limitation in the 1A re: free speech, or the 14A re: equal protection. If there was, you might have a point. It would be unjust as hell, but you'd at least have a legal argument

clearly you feel threatened by this judge's ruling
 
Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

Pastry Chef kills water Sever with Kitchen Knife, grieving husband sues Kitchen Knife maker J.A. Heckles over wrongful death, pain and suffering.... news at 11:00
 
Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

chromium said:
hah, it's within the boundaries the 2A establishes itself - "a well regulated militia". There is no such limitation in the 1A re: free speech, or the 14A re: equal protection. If there was, you might have a point. It would be unjust as hell, but you'd at least have a legal argument

clearly you feel threatened by this judge's ruling
Click to expand...

what natural right did the founders seek to guarantee with the second amendment? and if Gay rights are to be found in the NINTH amendment even though you cannot find a SINGLE FOUNDER suggested such a thing, why wouldn't the right of individuals not in the militia to keep and bear arms not be protected by the NINTH amendment given that so many of the founders were so adamant about free men being armed?
 
Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

Master PO said:
Pastry Chef kills water Sever with Kitchen Knife, grieving husband sues Kitchen Knife maker J.A. Heckles over wrongful death, pain and suffering.... news at 11:00
Click to expand...

The water server should have been armed. :mrgreen:
 
Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

danarhea said:
Yes, guns should be taken away. After all, that gun decided on it's own to shoot some people....... Wait, no it didn't.

Seriously, here's the deal. If we are going to take the guns away, then let's go all the way and ban other things that are bad..... Like chopped liver. Eaten to excess, it can kill a person. Yea, I know. It's silly. So was the judge's decision.

I'm OK with background checks, though.
Click to expand...

a background check WAS PERFORMED ON THE PERSON who bought the weapon

sadly there is no way to conduct background checks on those who murder others and steal their firearms
 
Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

chromium said:
precisely because a background check is only worth what it can prevent. The gun was easily stolen, therefore the BC failed to deter the murder of 20 kids. NO ONE should be allowed weapons of this nature either, because no one can be trusted with them and they are unnecessary for self defense to say the least. In fact, their sole use that other means of self defense can't accomplish is to slaughter innocents
Click to expand...

How can you possibly argue that a semi-auto rifle is unnecessary for self defense? What the heck do you think the cops who responded to the scene were carrying? The reason they were carrying them is because the fundamental aspect of self defense is to address the aggressor with at least equal and preferably greater force than they are using to attack you.
 
Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

chromium said:
hah, it's within the boundaries the 2A establishes itself - "a well regulated militia". There is no such limitation in the 1A re: free speech, or the 14A re: equal protection. If there was, you might have a point. It would be unjust as hell, but you'd at least have a legal argument

clearly you feel threatened by this judge's ruling
Click to expand...

you need to read up , well regulated means a organized group of mean, no power is granted to the federal government by the second amendment
 
Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

TurtleDude said:
what natural right did the founders seek to guarantee with the second amendment? and if Gay rights are to be found in the NINTH amendment even though you cannot find a SINGLE FOUNDER suggested such a thing, why wouldn't the right of individuals not in the militia to keep and bear arms not be protected by the NINTH amendment given that so many of the founders were so adamant about free men being armed?
Click to expand...

"rights reserved to the states, or the people" - why wouldn't a state have the right to decide for itself to ban military weapons, since the 2A clearly doesn't apply to those? All the government needs is compelling interest, which it certainly has in this case, just as it has an interest to ban sales of WMDs

anyway, equal protection is quite enough to secure my rights, thanks

and i've had enough fun so back on ignore you go, for the next time you decide to crawl into unrelated threads and start attacking my sexuality. You'll see me again at your next scheduled hysterical outburst when someone in authority rules you don't have a right to slaughter children in schools
 
Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

Master PO said:
you need to read up , well regulated means a organized group of mean, no power is granted to the federal government by the second amendment
Click to expand...

You'd be surprised how many gun banners think that the second amendment was all about a grant of power to the federal government

and I doubt he can address the fact that if the ninth amendment actually guarantees rights not a single founder ever suggested should be protected (gay marriage, abortion, contraception etc) then it certainly must guarantee something many of the founders constantly talked about approvingly-an armed free citizenry
 
Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

Lutherf said:
How can you possibly argue that a semi-auto rifle is unnecessary for self defense? What the heck do you think the cops who responded to the scene were carrying? The reason they were carrying them is because the fundamental aspect of self defense is to address the aggressor with at least equal and preferably greater force than they are using to attack you.
Click to expand...

cops are actually trained and have authority, else we would have no needs for cops and SWAT teams at all. We would just call the local gun nut to the rescue or lay off the cops and expect everyone to acquire their own "self defense"

Find me as many cases of a semi auto being used for self defense as for murder and i will concede your point that they're both necessary and effective without putting bystanders in danger
 
Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

chromium said:
cops are actually trained and have authority, else we would have no needs for cops and SWAT teams at all. We would just call the local gun nut to the rescue or lay off the cops and expect everyone to acquire their own "self defense"

Find me as many cases of a semi auto being used for self defense as for murder and i will concede your point that they're both necessary and effective without putting bystanders in danger
Click to expand...

it seems you don't like people having the right to bear arms,

since the right to bear arms is part of the same document, the BOR has right to speech and protest, i guess you don't like them either
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom