SCOTUS Allos Sandy Hook Families' Case Against Remington Arms to Proceed

[Renae]

Suits against Ford Motor Co. and other car makers were for many reasons -= one of which that the vehicles as designed and produced by those companies were unsafe even if used as the manual directed. Ralph Nader famously wrote of this in his book UNSAFE AT ANY SPEED.

Yeah no ****. My point is, applying this stupid gun lawsuit, suing ford for a drunk driver. Like suing a gun manufacturer cause someone shot up a school. Both equally stupid.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Are you completely uninformed and ignorant of all the programs that exist in the USA comprising a safety net.

No.

You are simply wrong about this.

That is incorrect. Our social safety net is very weak, and people slip through the cracks all of the time.

That is what you attempted to do

True. I believe my exact words were:

"What a nice basket of cherries you've picked there. Can I pick some too?"

My picked cherries countered your picked cherries.

but you alluded to data but failed to present any. And you still do.

Here you go:
Everybody’s Lying About the Link Between Gun Ownership and Homicide

You might want to open it in incognito/private browsing. It's one of those places that use cookies to only give people a handful of free articles every month.

That is a decision for society to make via their elected government.

Not exactly. The Second Amendment says no, and the NRA enforces the Second Amendment.

 

[haymarket]

I'm not here to teach ...

Stop right there. We ALL are here for many things - and instructing other or teaching them to what we think are the facts or the truth is part of that.

So you are proceeding from a false premise that is simply wrong.

And you still cannot state what you feel I have not answered. That says everything since you are employing the delaying and evasive tactics I previously mentioned. You do not even have the good common sense to stop digging.

 

[haymarket]

Yeah no ****. My point is, applying this stupid gun lawsuit, suing ford for a drunk driver. Like suing a gun manufacturer cause someone shot up a school. Both equally stupid.

And if you were a juror in the case, you could employ those feelings. Simply allow the jurors to do so.

 

[haymarket]

Our social safety net is very weak, and people slip through the cracks all of the time.

You have presented no evidence of either. And you have presented no evidence that any other country I mentioned is any different in regards to people and these cracks you mention.

True. I believe my exact words were:

"What a nice basket of cherries you've picked there. Can I pick some too?"

My picked cherries countered your picked cherries.

That is all you do.

Not exactly. The Second Amendment says no, and the NRA enforces the Second Amendment

The NRA is a lobbying group. They have no enforcement power.

 

[haymarket]

Here you go:
Everybody’s Lying About the Link Between Gun Ownership and Homicide

What specifically in that opinion piece do you think negates the situation that exists in England, Canada, Japan and the USA?

 

[Renae]

And if you were a juror in the case, you could employ those feelings. Simply allow the jurors to do so.

The judges should through this out as a stupid lawsuit, frivolous.

 

[haymarket]

The judges should through this out as a stupid lawsuit, frivolous.

Loss of human lives are NOT frivolous.

That is your own opinion because you are on the side of the gun companies. The SCOTUS has said otherwise.

 

[Rich2018]

"The Supreme Court refused to shield a major arms manufacturer from potential liability in the 2012 school shooting that left 26 students and educators dead...
The justices' action ... to move forward at the state level, on the allegation that Remington Arms Co. marketed the military-style rifle used in the mass shooting "for use in assaults against human beings."

The case tests the reach of a 2005 law passed by Congress to protect firearms manufacturers from being held liable for crimes committed by gun purchasers. That law was hailed by the National Rifle Association, but it included exceptions, including one for violating rules related to marketing and advertising...
...gun control advocates have said a victory by the families in the long-running dispute could lead to more lawsuits and damaging disclosures involving the firearms industry....
...Scott Keller, the lawyer representing Remington, told the court that under the 2005 federal law, the lawsuit 'is exactly the kind of case arising from a criminal’s misuse of a firearm that 'may not be brought in any federal or state court'..."


Supreme Court: Sandy Hook lawsuit against gun manufacturer can proceed


If the state finds for the families, it's bound to go to the SCotUSA.

Could Congress repeal that 2005 law as well? It might not help this time but it might well do in future if Remington's defense case hangs on it.

 

[CLAX1911]

When you read what I have already written about distinguishing the LAW from the FUNCTION - I would be more than happy to discuss this with you.

I'm sorry to break this to you but you have been discussing this with me.

do you want to make it out as though they're designed to commit murder with and that's not the case. I've been giving you examples which you didn't address.

Matches are designed to start fires but we don't sue the manufacturer because they're used to commit arson.

That's exactly the same thing.

I think you don't like that because it renders your position illogical.

 

[haymarket]

I'm sorry to break this to you but you have been discussing this with me.

do you want to make it out as though they're designed to commit murder with and that's not the case. I've been giving you examples which you didn't address.

Matches are designed to start fires but we don't sue the manufacturer because they're used to commit arson.

That's exactly the same thing.

I think you don't like that because it renders your position illogical.

And I have repeatedly reminded you that it is the STATE which decides what is murder... what is a self defense killing ... what is a justifiable homicide. when taking a life makes you a hero or a villain. It does not matter since the gun works the same in any of these legal findings by government. So it is irrelevant what you call it.

As for your matches comparison, do you know of any special laws we have passed to shield match manufacturers like we have gun manufacturers? If so, please present them.

 

[CLAX1911]

And I have repeatedly reminded you that it is the STATE which decides what is murder... what is a self defense killing ... what is a justifiable homicide. when taking a life makes you a hero or a villain. It does not matter since the gun works the same in any of these legal findings by government. So it is irrelevant what you call it.

same thing with matches if you use them to start a fire you're using them for their intended purpose whether you're sitting someone's house on fire or lighting your fireplace. We don't hold manufacturer responsible.

The analogy is out you avoided because you don't want to admit you have a bias.

As for your matches comparison, do you know of any special laws we have passed to shield match manufacturers like we have gun manufacturers? If so, please present them.

Probably doesn't need to be because there's not people like you that want to stop people from buying matches. But if there were people trying to abuse the legal system in the same way then it would probably be laws against it.

it's just that there's not anti liberty authoritarians out to stop people from using matches.

 

[haymarket]

same thing with matches if you use them to start a fire you're using them for their intended purpose whether you're sitting someone's house on fire or lighting your fireplace. We don't hold manufacturer responsible.

The analogy is out you avoided because you don't want to admit you have a bias.


Probably doesn't need to be because there's not people like you that want to stop people from buying matches. But if there were people trying to abuse the legal system in the same way then it would probably be laws against it.

it's just that there's not anti liberty authoritarians out to stop people from using matches.

We do not need special shield laws to thwart the right of US citizens to have their day in court protecting certain line of business above others.

 

[zsu2357]

The purpose of cars is not to speed or weave or create any kind of hazard to others,

Every day it seems that is exactly what someone does to me or close to it. I mostly refer to the speeding by and weaving in and out. And I've had fools try squeezing past in the bike lanes and the other hazards are people going through lights and stop signs like they aren't there and damn near T-Boning me.

 

[zsu2357]

The weapon is intended to hit what it is aimed at when it is fired. A person who shoots another person is using it exactly as it is intended to function.

There was someone awhile ago but I'm not sure if it was this thread or you that made that remark about intended function then rattled off a list of weapons that COULD be "approved to own" mmm DBL barrel shotgun,bolt action single shot rifle and muzzle loaders. I gave up looking for it. But you should recall it as all anti gun people here should. Now the point here is simply saying it looks like those weapons above wouldn't even be allowed since they can be aimed and fired at 'someone' thus full filling their function.

 

[CLAX1911]

We do not need special shield laws to thwart the right of US citizens to have their day in court protecting certain line of business above others.

No, we do need special laws protecting targets from malicious litigation. That is all this is about.

 

[zsu2357]

=Rich2018;1070894066]And all refuted.

Do you have anything original ?

What I see looks pretty good.

I know: "I need to have a gun to keep myself alive"
No
Plenty of people remain alive and kicking with no guns.

And I bet their are a pretty fair number of people that aren't alive and kicking that would be if they had a firearm.

Or: "I need a gun to hunt meat and feed myself"
No
You can buy meat at a store like most people do

And if for whatever reason you can't(as in stores are empty) just run to the store?

What else you got ?

EMP,financial collapse for example. Yeah I know never gonna happen.That's sarcasm. Look at Katrina.
But also we don't need a permission slip which is reason enough.

 

[haymarket]

There was someone awhile ago but I'm not sure if it was this thread or you that made that remark about intended function then rattled off a list of weapons that COULD be "approved to own" mmm DBL barrel shotgun,bolt action single shot rifle and muzzle loaders. I gave up looking for it. But you should recall it as all anti gun people here should. Now the point here is simply saying it looks like those weapons above wouldn't even be allowed since they can be aimed and fired at 'someone' thus full filling their function.

I honestly am not familiar with that post nor that argument.

 

[haymarket]

No, we do need special laws protecting targets from malicious litigation. That is all this is about.

Treat all companies and manufacturers equally and preserve a citizens right to sue before a jury.

 

[CLAX1911]

Treat all companies and manufacturers equally and preserve a citizens right to sue before a jury.

It's because of unequal treatment of gun manufacturers that such laws had to be created.

They are being targeted by malicious litigation case and point the topic of this thread.

 

[haymarket]

It's because of unequal treatment of gun manufacturers that such laws had to be created.

They are being targeted by malicious litigation case and point the topic of this thread.

Treating all companies by the same standards is the OPPOSITE of unequal treatment.

Perhaps you can explain why you favor special protective shield laws for gun makers?

 

[jaeger19]

Oh really try to make a gun or smuggle it through an airport detector

My son when he was 16 made a functioning semi automatic pistol using the tools we have in our barn. . Totally legal. (unless he tries to sell it since it has no serial number)

AS far as smuggling through a metal detector.

As part of a recent investigation, undercover agents smuggled fake knives, guns, and explosives though various airport security checkpoints across the country to see how well the TSA procedures and equipment could detect the weapons. The result? Tests showed a failure rate of more than 70 percent, according to CBS News. In other words, weapons passed through airport security completely undetected 70 percent of the time. (A source at ABC News even bumped the failure rate to be "in the ballpark" of 80 percent.)

That's a terrorist ORGANISATION

Yep..point? They got guns..didn;t they..

Why do you think, in a recent attack, a group of Islamic terrorists attacked a crowd in London with knives rather than automatic rifles.

I am not sure. Perhaps they figured that they could create more terror for longer considering that there would not be the sound of gun fire.

 

[jaeger19]

We do not need special shield laws to thwart the right of US citizens to have their day in court protecting certain line of business above others.

Yes we do.

 

[zsu2357]

Yeah no ****. My point is, applying this stupid gun lawsuit, suing ford for a drunk driver. Like suing a gun manufacturer cause someone shot up a school. Both equally stupid.

Yes equally stupid, which is why one MUST apply too the other.

 

[zsu2357]

Originally Posted by Renae
The judges should through this out as a stupid lawsuit, frivolous.

Originally Posted by haymarket
That is your own opinion because you are on the side of the gun companies. The SCOTUS has said otherwise.

When did the SCOTUS say otherwise? That was fast.