• 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

calamity said:
Porsche was sued for that actor's death. You really are pretty bad at this.

Paul Walker's daughter settles with Porsche in wrongful-death suit

:doh
Click to expand...

Porsche wasn't sued because the actor was speeding or that he crashed; they were sued because of alleged design flaws that led to his death. If the actor had hit a pedestrian because of excessive speed, do you think Porsche would have settled?

There are no design flaws at issue in the Remington lawsuit.
 
Rucker61 said:
Porsche wasn't sued because the actor was speeding or that he crashed; they were sued because of alleged design flaws that led to his death. If the actor had hit a pedestrian because of excessive speed, do you think Porsche would have settled?

There are no design flaws at issue in the Remington lawsuit.
Click to expand...

How do you know? Let the court decide. What are you afraid of?


That is the issue. Gun people want to ban the court from hearing the cases. Why is that?
 
calamity said:
How do you know? Let the court decide. What are you afraid of?
Click to expand...

You failed to highlight my entire claim: "There are no design flaws at issue in the Remington lawsuit." We know because we've read the text of the lawsuit. The plaintiffs aren't claiming any flaws in the design, so there are no design flaws at issue in that lawsuit. Seems simple enough.

That is the issue. Gun people want to ban the court from hearing the cases. Why is that?
Click to expand...

One, it's an obvious frivolous lawsuit, like suing Ford because someone lost control and slammed their Mustang into a bridge abutment at 120 mph. Two, it violates the PLCAA. Three, you've already answered. You want GCAs and their well-funded billionaires to have the ability to launch countless frivolous lawsuits in order to destroy the firearms industry. You've already said that it would be "good".

At issue is marketing. I can't wait to hear how the plaintiffs expect to prove that a slogan like "Consider your man card reissued" is supposed to mean that men should buy a gun to commit mass murder or that a middle aged single mom was influenced by getting her man card to buy a Bushmaster rifle.
 
Rucker61 said:
You failed to highlight my entire claim: "There are no design flaws at issue in the Remington lawsuit." We know because we've read the text of the lawsuit. The plaintiffs aren't claiming any flaws in the design, so there are no design flaws at issue in that lawsuit. Seems simple enough.



One, it's an obvious frivolous lawsuit, like suing Ford because someone lost control and slammed their Mustang into a bridge abutment at 120 mph. Two, it violates the PLCAA. Three, you've already answered. You want GCAs and their well-funded billionaires to have the ability to launch countless frivolous lawsuits in order to destroy the firearms industry. You've already said that it would be "good".

At issue is marketing. I can't wait to hear how the plaintiffs expect to prove that a slogan like "Consider your man card reissued" is supposed to mean that men should buy a gun to commit mass murder or that a middle aged single mom was influenced by getting her man card to buy a Bushmaster rifle.
Click to expand...

Let the jury decide. What are you afraid of?
 
Rucker61 said:
You failed to highlight my entire claim: "There are no design flaws at issue in the Remington lawsuit." We know because we've read the text of the lawsuit. The plaintiffs aren't claiming any flaws in the design, so there are no design flaws at issue in that lawsuit. Seems simple enough.



One, it's an obvious frivolous lawsuit, like suing Ford because someone lost control and slammed their Mustang into a bridge abutment at 120 mph. Two, it violates the PLCAA. Three, you've already answered. You want GCAs and their well-funded billionaires to have the ability to launch countless frivolous lawsuits in order to destroy the firearms industry. You've already said that it would be "good".

At issue is marketing. I can't wait to hear how the plaintiffs expect to prove that a slogan like "Consider your man card reissued" is supposed to mean that men should buy a gun to commit mass murder or that a middle aged single mom was influenced by getting her man card to buy a Bushmaster rifle.
Click to expand...

The issue isnt design flaws.

Why are you so consistently dishonest?

It’s because the manufacturer was marketing the product expressly to kill people.

As their lawyer noted... if Ford marketed a car and emphasized its ability and use to run people over, and pointed out all the great pedestrian killing features it had on board, they would certainly be sued if someone drove their Taurus into a crowd.


485205c5c433bad5403ebffc539eb0b3.jpg
 
jet57 said:
Ya'mean like when batteries catch fire and kill people, or software keeps jeeps from stopping? You bet we should.
Click to expand...
We don't sue car companies when the cars function properly.
We shouldn't sue gun companies when the guns function properly.
 
Threegoofs said:
The issue isnt design flaws.

Why are you so consistently dishonest?

It’s because the manufacturer was marketing the product expressly to kill people.

As their lawyer noted... if Ford marketed a car and emphasized its ability and use to run people over, and pointed out all the great pedestrian killing features it had on board, they would certainly be sued if someone drove their Taurus into a crowd.
Click to expand...

I've never known of any gun company that emphasized how their products could be used to kill innocent people, or any gun company that intended for their products to be used that way.
 
DebateChallenge said:
I've never known of any gun company that emphasized how their products could be used to kill innocent people, or any gun company that intended for their products to be used that way.
Click to expand...

Just kill... guilty people?
 
Threegoofs said:
The issue isnt design flaws.

Why are you so consistently dishonest?
Click to expand...

Really? Here's what I wrote: "There are no design flaws at issue in the Remington lawsuit." Here's what you just wrote: "The issue isnt (sic) design flaws". We've stated exactly the same thing, and you're calling me dishonest for a statement you agreed with.

Calamity claimed that a suit against Porsche was similar to the Remington suit, and that Porsche suit was based on claims of defect in the design. He's evidently the dishonest one. Take it up with him.

It’s because the manufacturer was marketing the product expressly to kill people.
Click to expand...

Again, I noted that the issue at hand was marketing: "At issue is marketing". And no, the manufacturer wasn't marketing the product as expressly to kill people. That's an position not supportable in reality.

As their lawyer noted... if Ford marketed a car and emphasized its ability and use to run people over, and pointed out all the great pedestrian killing features it had on board, they would certainly be sued if someone drove their Taurus into a crowd.
Click to expand...

And yet nothing in the design of the Bushmaster makes it any better at killing someone than any other gun. Please point out the marketing points that say this weapon is great for murdering people.

485205c5c433bad5403ebffc539eb0b3.jpg
Click to expand...

What's the material difference between that firearm, not intended for murdering people, than in the Remington Model 8 box magazine fed semiautomatic rifle invented for hunting in 1905? Show where the manufacturer said "this is a great murder weapon".
 
Crovax said:
Yes but it only applies to federal jurisdictions
Click to expand...

The Seventh Amendment is generally considered one of the more straightforward amendments of the Bill of Rights. While the Seventh Amendment's provision for jury trials in civil cases has never been incorporated (i.e., applied to the states) almost every state voluntarily complies with this requirement.


So, what exactly is your argument? Do you even have one?
 
From the plaintiffs' position:

"The gravamen of the plaintiffs’ complaint was that the defendants negligently entrusted to civilian consumers an assault rifle that is suitable for use only by military and law enforcement personnel and violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) (§ 42-110a et seq.) through
the sale or wrongful marketing of the rifle. The plaintiffs’ first theory of liability was that the rifle is a military grade weapon that is grossly ill-suited for legitimate civilian purposes such as self-defense or recreation, that the rifle and other similar semiautomatic weapons have
become the weapon of choice for mass shootings and, therefore, that the risks associated with selling the rifle to the civilian market far outweigh any potential benefits, that the defendants continued to sell the rifle despite their knowledge of these facts, and that it therefore was
negligent and an unfair trade practice under CUTPA for the defendants to sell the weapon, knowing that it eventually would be purchased by a civilian customer who might share it with other civilian users"

https://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR331/331CR865.pdf

It's not a "military grade weapon". It's perfectly suited for legitimate civilian purposes such as self-defense or recreation (else with 15 million of them, there'd be a lot more murders with them), these are other similar semiautomatic weapons are still not the weapon of choice for mass shootings (that would be a handgun) and if I were counsel for the defendants, I would address the claim "risks associated with selling the rifle to the civilian market far outweigh any potential benefits" with the fact that the federal government, on multiple occasions, sold hundreds of thousand of actual military grade, semiautomatic, magazine fed intermediate caliber to the civilian market, and that actions taken by private firms that exactly replicate the lawful actions of the federal government cannot be grounds for liability.
 
DebateChallenge said:
So I suppose we should sue car companies for all the car accidents, after all you say this is good.
Click to expand...

doesn't matter-this decision is contrary to federal law. and since the gun maker is in a "foreign state" the federal supremacy clause applies. You know that pesky INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE that gives federal jurisdiction.
 
Rucker61 said:
I hope the defense points out that the federal government used to sell military surplus, semiautomatic, magazine fed intermediate caliber firearms to US citizens without background checks for $20 including shipping.
Click to expand...

Got four of them-but by the time I got around to buying them, it was a bit more money
 
TurtleDude said:
doesn't matter-this decision is contrary to federal law. and since the gun maker is in a "foreign state" the federal supremacy clause applies. You know that pesky INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE that gives federal jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

Ah, so you favor ignoring the 7th Amendment in order to preserve your own misinterpretation of the 2nd. I see.
 
Barnacle said:
I wish the media would stop using half-truth headlines ...

Headline blares "Supreme Court ...", making one think it is the Supreme Court, when in fact it is "Connecticut Supreme Court ..."
Click to expand...

which is both full of lefties in a state run by gun hating lefties and their jurisdiction is of dubious validity
 
calamity said:
lol...never before have I seen so much whine over the prospect of a jury deciding a case.
Click to expand...

are you ok with the plaintiffs being forced to pay the gunmakers legal bills after this matter is ultimately decided?
 
Threegoofs said:
So you;re a fan of selling virtually free weapons to anyone who wants them without a background check?

FREEDOM!
Click to expand...

Few of those weapons were ever misused-but then again-to the anti gun left-the real crime is voting for your gun rights-which means you vote against the scum that gun banners seek to elect.

When those guns were sold you had to do the following

1) prove you were an active competitive shooter-back then that meant you had to have a service rifle classification card and a NRA membership.

now the requirements are as follows.

1) proof of firearms activity which can be a CCW license or proof of competitive shooting activity

2) membership in an affiliated club

3) and yes they do a background check
 
calamity said:
Ah, so you favor ignoring the 7th Amendment in order to preserve your own misinterpretation of the 2nd. I see.
Click to expand...

I need a really good laugh

given the owner of the firearm went through a background check, a waiting period and registration in CT-why was CT allowing these weapons to be sold? The plaintiff has no valid argument against the maker.

I want to see the plaintiffs' attorneys disbarred and bankrupted for filing this bogus lawsuit and I hope the plaintiffs take a major hit as well.
 
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...

and you had to show proof of competitive shooting activity-such as having a high power rifle classification card
 
Rucker61 said:
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?
Click to expand...

He dislikes gun owners -because many of us don't vote for the global warming hysterics he supports. Few if any MI carbines and I cannot recall ANY MI Grands-were ever used for criminal purposes. the most notorious use of an MI Garand that had once been part of the DCM-from what I recall was that "Interarms" brokered some in a gray area deal and Bolivian operatives used one to kill Che Guevara
 
calamity said:
Zealotry makes it very easy to dismiss a dead six year old. Desn't it?
Click to expand...

I am waiting for you to whine about all the dead six year olds that have come from alcohol and drunk drivers Of course we will never see that, because you cannot bash a political side by trying to blame breweries or distillers for dead children.
 
calamity said:
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.
Click to expand...

You apparently are unable to understand that legally the case violates a superseding federal law
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom