• 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!

Court reinstates Sandy Hook lawsuit against gunmaker

Rucker61 said:
The Democrats were. Actually, the firearms weren't offered to anyone that wanted them (background checks didn't exist at that point) - they were only sold to members of the NRA.
Click to expand...

Why are you deflecting?

YOU said it was a good idea.
 
Threegoofs said:
Why are you deflecting?

YOU said it was a good idea.
Click to expand...

In actuality, the sale by the government to NRA members of 260,000 M1 Carbines was not a bad idea. That leaves neutral, good or undetermined results. Based on the data we have, no ill came from those sales.

That's all you're allowed to take away from my post. Anything else is strawman creation on your side.

Why do you think it was a bad idea?
 
Rucker61 said:
In actuality, the sale by the government to NRA members of 260,000 M1 Carbines was not a bad idea. That leaves neutral, good or undetermined results. Based on the data we have, no ill came from those sales.

That's all you're allowed to take away from my post. Anything else is strawman creation on your side.

Why do you think it was a bad idea?
Click to expand...

Selling cheap guns to anyone who wants them with no background checks.

What could be bad about that?

So much freedoms
 
Threegoofs said:
Selling cheap guns to anyone who wants them with no background checks.

What could be bad about that?

So much freedoms
Click to expand...

Straw man fallacy. I've not proposed that. You actually did say that the CMP sale of 260,000 M1 Carbines in 1963 was a bad idea. Why do you feel that way?
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
We are all mostly products of our own experiences.

I'm guessing if it was 1 of our 6 year olds who was shot and needlessly killed some here might have different opinions.
Click to expand...

I doubt it, the only thing motivating this lawsuit is greed
 
Crovax said:
I doubt it, the only thing motivating this lawsuit is greed
Click to expand...

Zealotry makes it very easy to dismiss a dead six year old. Desn't it?
 
Crovax said:
I doubt it, the only thing motivating this lawsuit is greed
Click to expand...

For the organizations backing the parents, it's more insidious - if this is allowed to stand, they can shut down every gun shop and manufacturer with nuisance lawsuits.
 
Rucker61 said:
For the organizations backing the parents, it's more insidious - if this is allowed to stand, they can shut down every gun shop and manufacturer with nuisance lawsuits.
Click to expand...

Good!
 
calamity said:
Zealotry makes it very easy to dismiss a dead six year old. Desn't it?
Click to expand...

No one is dismissing the death of any six year olds by pointing out that this lawsuit should be prohibited by law.
 
Rucker61 said:
For the organizations backing the parents, it's more insidious - if this is allowed to stand, they can shut down every gun shop and manufacturer with nuisance lawsuits.
Click to expand...
Its tragic...but there are a whole lot of anti-gun KUNTZMAN's out there.
 
Rucker61 said:
This answer is why we oppose those who seek to destroy our rights.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but the state allowing a court case to proceed is not infringing on your right to bear arms. But, you want the state to deny people the right to trial by jury. Imagine that.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
We are all mostly products of our own experiences.

I'm guessing if it was 1 of our 6 year olds who was shot and needlessly killed some here might have different opinions.
Click to expand...


I would not blame the manufacturer for the actions of a person, even if it was my child.
 
Obviously our friends here are so obsessed by the 2nd Amendment that they never bothered to count to 7

The amendment as proposed by Congress in 1789 reads as follows:

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.[3]

Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
Click to expand...
 
holbritter said:
I would not blame the manufacturer for the actions of a person, even if it was my child.
Click to expand...

bull****

obviously

Unless you lived it you are full of it.
 
calamity said:
bull****

obviously

Unless you lived it you are full of it.
Click to expand...


You don't know me. Being grief stricken doesn't automatically make you an idiot. You're arrogance is astounding.
 
holbritter said:
You don't know me. Being grief stricken doesn't automatically make you an idiot. You're arrogance is astounding.
Click to expand...

Your post was arrogant. You're the one making a blanket statement. Why are you against the parent of a dead child exercising his or her 7th Amendment rights?
 
calamity said:
Why do you want to deny people their 7th Amendment right to civil trial?


Do explain.
Click to expand...

Do you think that Ford should be sued for DUI deaths? Besides, you answered your own question when you said it would be "good" for the firearms industry to be nuisance sued out of existence.
 
Rucker61 said:
Do you think that Ford should be sued for DUI deaths? Besides, you answered your own question when you said it would be "good" for the firearms industry to be nuisance sued out of existence.
Click to expand...

This is about guns. Start a car thread if you wish.


Why do you gun people always deflect?

But, if you insist. I'd be fine with guns requiring a license, registration and costing as much to buy as a car. :)
 
calamity said:
This is about guns. Start a car thread if you wish.


Why do you gun people always deflect?
Click to expand...
It's not deflection. I've address your spurious points every single time. It's an analogous situation. Do we allow victims to sue manufacturers who have no liability in selling a legal product to be sued? Why shouldn't this Connecticut lawsuit simply be tossed, other than you want to end the firearms industry in the US?

But, if you insist. I'd be fine with guns requiring a license, registration and costing as much to buy as a car. :)
Click to expand...

Fine. Answer the question above then.
 
great. so when I get hit by a car, I can sue Ford.

Or if a drunk hits me, I can sue Ford AND Budweiser.
 
Roadvirus said:
great. so when I get hit by a car, I can sue Ford.

Or if a drunk hits me, I can sue Ford AND Budweiser.
Click to expand...

Is there anyone stopping you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom