Can Sandy Hook Families Hold the Gun Industry Accountable?

[moon]

I really don't think he's from this country. Not sure though. He sure doesn't like it no matter where he is from.

Sorry, I'll try to act dumber and pseudo-patriotic.

 

[NOVA]

Is the moon made of green cheese?

Only his brain.

 

[moon]

Moonie pinhead mis-states the purpose of guns in the first place and that feeds his argument....

False. The purpose of guns that are designed to kill people is to kill people. Even a fraud like you should be able to get a handle on that.

We can just as easily state, with certainty, that guns are made for shooting, period.....how you shoot them and what you shoot at are totally under the control
of the shooter......the gun has no control over the user....the user has total control over the gun....

Yes, guns are made for shooting. That is an important part of the principle design- to kill people. We're talking about guns that are designed to kill people, of course.

If the gun shoots, it does exactly what it was designed to go..

You're agreeing with me.

....and that ends the legal responsibility of the manufacturer....

False. As the gun used to kill people was designed to kill people then the manufacturer will always carry responsibility for it. He cannot be held responsible if a gun that was not designed to kill people was misused.

A gun IS NOT made specifically to kill people..

A very, very stupid statement , Fraud. It's evident to any half-assed twat that some guns have no other purpose.

Can we state that poison is made specifically to kill ?....it would sound reasonable, at first....but it would be wrong.....

If a poison was designed specifically to kill humans then the manufacturer must bear responsibility for its use. Even a twat of the other half of the ass can see that.

School is dismissed for today, moonpie...

OK, Fraud, but bring a note from your ma the next time you turn up with no trousers.

 

[moon]

Only his brain.

OK, so you've been publicly butt-fucked by a cheesebrain. Not a lot of kudos in that.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

False. The purpose of guns that are designed to kill people is to kill people. Even a fraud like you should be able to get a handle on that.

False. Guns are not designed to 'kill people'

The vast majority of guns are NEVER used to kill people. They are used for target shooting and hunting. Neither of which kills people.

False. As the gun used to kill people was designed to kill people then the manufacturer will always carry responsibility for it. He cannot be held responsible if a gun that was not designed to kill people was misused.

Again... no gun is designed to kill people. They are designed to be fired. A gun used for target practice is not being used to kill people. While some guns are not meant for hunting, there isn't a single one that isn't used for target shooting. So your premise that the guns are designed to kill people is not accurate. The manufacturer does not bear the responsibility for the actions of the person that buys the gun. No gun is designed so that people can go kill innocent people. Not one.

A very, very stupid statement , Fraud. It's evident to any half-assed twat that some guns have no other purpose.

So despite people showing you other purposes, you will ignore them because you want to continue trolling?

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

How so ?

A manufacturer bears no responsibility for a product being used for which it was not intended, ESPECIALLY when it is stated not to do so in the literature that said purchase contains (the owners manual).

Further there is the moral ramifications of what you argue. You essentially state that I, a Freeborn man, am not free to own property nor to defend myself. And I am no free to do so not because of my actions, but the actions of another.

And then you would assert that I am not free to engage in legal business, again because of the uncontrollable actions of someone whom wishes to abuse their own rights. For someone so concerned with the plight of the Palestinian people, you should probably understand more than nothing at all about human rights.

 

[moon]

False. Guns are not designed to 'kill people'

The vast majority of guns are NEVER used to kill people. They are used for target shooting and hunting. Neither of which kills people.

Again... no gun is designed to kill people.

How would you describe the weapons issued to , for example, special forces overseas ?

They are designed to be fired.

That's part of the design process. Guns which are designed to kill people- such as those issued to persons who are employed to kill people- include firing mechanisms. Most special forces would insist that they be included.

A gun used for target practice is not being used to kill people.

We're agreed

While some guns are not meant for hunting, there isn't a single one that isn't used for target shooting.

There are an awful lot of dead people who would disagree, if they could.

So your premise that the guns are designed to kill people is not accurate.

Sure it is. Guns which are designed to kill people do kill people. That's what they're for.

The manufacturer does not bear the responsibility for the actions of the person that buys the gun.

You're correct under the current 2005 legislation. However, that is now open to challenge and the Act should be struck down- in a sane country.

No gun is designed so that people can go kill innocent people. Not one.

Well, you'd have to show me one that wouldn't fire when pointed at an innocent person.

So despite people showing you other purposes, you will ignore them because you want to continue trolling?

Trolling, eh ? I've tried to be courteous to you but it's evident that you're just another moronic dumbass- so I'll treat you as such from here on.

 

[NOVA]

A manufacturer bears no responsibility for a product being used for which it was not intended, ESPECIALLY when it is stated not to do so in the literature that said purchase contains (the owners manual).

Further there is the moral ramifications of what you argue. You essentially state that I, a Freeborn man, am not free to own property nor to defend myself. And I am no free to do so not because of my actions, but the actions of another.

And then you would assert that I am not free to engage in legal business, again because of the uncontrollable actions of someone whom wishes to abuse their own rights. For someone so concerned with the plight of the Palestinian people, you should probably under more than nothing at all about human rights.

Well stated....moonie hates Jews rather than cares for Palestinians....he gets his "news" from Middle East sources and expects us to accept it as 100% fact.....not much
different than the other pinheads that repeat bs from left wing huffington and media matters, etc. and expects everyone to not question the source....but routinly
rejects news from legitimate sources such as Fox News and the WSJ and CNN....

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You're correct under the current 2005 legislation. However, that is now open to challenge and the Act should be struck down- in a sane country.

you still have yet to logically explain why that is and what effect you believe it will positively have upon a free society.

 

[NOVA]

Moonie pinhead mis-states the purpose of guns in the first place and that feeds his argument....

We can just as easily state, with certainty, that guns are made for shooting, period.....how you shoot them and what you shoot at are totally under the control
of the shooter......the gun has no control over the user....the user has total control over the gun....

If the gun shoots, it does exactly what it was designed to go......and that ends the legal responsibility of the manufacturer....

A gun IS NOT made specifically to kill people....nor is a knife, but both can be used for that purpose.....

Can we state that poison is made specifically to kill ?....it would sound reasonable, at first....but it would be wrong.....

The term "poison" is often used colloquially to describe any harmful substance—particularly corrosive substances, carcinogens, mutagens, teratogens and harmful pollutants, and to exaggerate the dangers of chemicals. Paracelsus (1493–1541), the father of toxicology, once wrote: "Everything is poison, there is poison in everything. Only the dose makes a thing not a poison" (see median lethal dose). The law defines "poison" more strictly. Substances not legally required to carry the label "poison" can also cause a medical condition of poisoning.


School is dismissed for today, moonpie...

A manufacturer bears no responsibility for a product being used for which it was not intended, ESPECIALLY when it is stated not to do so in the literature that said purchase contains (the owners manual).

Further there is the moral ramifications of what you argue. You essentially state that I, a Freeborn man, am not free to own property nor to defend myself. And I am no free to do so not because of my actions, but the actions of another.

And then you would assert that I am not free to engage in legal business, again because of the uncontrollable actions of someone whom wishes to abuse their own rights. For someone so concerned with the plight of the Palestinian people, you should probably under more than nothing at all about human rights.

False. Guns are not designed to 'kill people'

The vast majority of guns are NEVER used to kill people. They are used for target shooting and hunting. Neither of which kills people.



Again... no gun is designed to kill people. They are designed to be fired. A gun used for target practice is not being used to kill people. While some guns are not meant for hunting, there isn't a single one that isn't used for target shooting. So your premise that the guns are designed to kill people is not accurate. The manufacturer does not bear the responsibility for the actions of the person that buys the gun. No gun is designed so that people can go kill innocent people. Not one.



So despite people showing you other purposes, you will ignore them because you want to continue trolling?

Poor moonpie

 

[moon]

A manufacturer bears no responsibility for a product being used for which it was not intended, ESPECIALLY when it is stated not to do so in the literature that said purchase contains (the owners manual).

That is untrue in the case of lethal weapons designed specifically to kill people. No marine, for example, is given an assault rifle along with a warning not to kill anybody with it.

Further there is the moral ramifications of what you argue. You essentially state that I, a Freeborn man, am not free to own property nor to defend myself. And I am no free to do so not because of my actions, but the actions of another.

The state has a duty to protect everybody. That duty includes a responsibility to prevent members of the public from slaughtering each other. In a sane country the demos would have trust in the protectors it elects. I sympathize with your evident need to take your self-protection into your own hands, I really do, and I'm sure that a dramatic reduction in the type of weapons permitted for general ownership will bring both sides of the debate closer together.

And then you would assert that I am not free to engage in legal business, again because of the uncontrollable actions of someone whom wishes to abuse their own rights. For someone so concerned with the plight of the Palestinian people, you should probably under more than nothing at all about human rights.

War, unfortunately, is a different consideration. I'd like to see every Palestinian able to defend himself and his family, just like you- but Palestinians are under constant and long-term lethal attack. You're not.

 

[moon]

Poor moonpie

NOVA;

A gun IS NOT made specifically to kill people..

True, with the exception of guns that are.

Poorer Fraud.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

That is untrue in the case of lethal weapons designed specifically to kill people. No marine, for example, is given an assault rifle along with a warning not to kill anybody with it.


The state has a duty to protect everybody. That duty includes a responsibility to prevent members of the public from slaughtering each other. In a sane country the demos would have trust in the protectors it elects. I sympathize with your evident need to take your self-protection into your own hands, I really do, and I'm sure that a dramatic reduction in the type of weapons permitted for general ownership will bring both sides of the debate closer together.




War, unfortunately, is a different consideration. I'd like to see every Palestinian able to defend himself and his family, just like you- but Palestinians are under constant and long-term lethal attack. You're not.

Firstly, you would do well not to tell someone who was a Marine about what my orders were. Unless you enjoy looking foolish of course. Secondly, you would do well to educate yourself on the differences between military and civilian arms. They are not the same thing. But even if they were, it would be irrelevant. The State DOES NOT have the power to govern my property as a Freeborn man. Their SOLE PURPOSE is to protect my human right to that property and to punish those whose misuse/abuse of rights has harmed others. Prevention is the job of Individuals and Societies, not the State.

You also return to your patently false premise that it is arms that make men dangerous, when it is the opposite in every instance. It is not the hammer in my shed that made me a carpenter, and it is not the arms in my home that make me violent, for I am neither. The lack of arms has been categorically shown to be irrelevant when it comes to the will of one to do violence against their fellow man.

Lastly who do you presume to be to say that my life is not in danger on a daily basis? Do you mean to imply that I live in world where I cannot have violence done to me? What fantasy do you engage in that would suggest that?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The state has a duty to protect everybody. That duty includes a responsibility to prevent members of the public from slaughtering each other.

this is not even remotely true, as Castle rock v. Gonzalez (among others) clearly state.

In a sane country the demos would have trust in the protectors it elects.

your definition of sane needs alot of work.

I sympathize with your evident need to take your self-protection into your own hands, I really do, and I'm sure that a dramatic reduction in the type of weapons permitted for general ownership will bring both sides of the debate closer together.

wanna bet?

 

[moon]

Well stated....moonie hates Jews rather than cares for Palestinians....he gets his "news" from Middle East sources and expects us to accept it as 100% fact.....not much
different than the other pinheads that repeat bs from left wing huffington and media matters, etc. and expects everyone to not question the source....but routinly
rejects news from legitimate sources such as Fox News and the WSJ and CNN....

On the other hand, this fraudulent ' US Navy veteran ' is a neoZionist arse-licker who rejects that the crew of the USS Liberty were murdered by the Israelis and is more than willing to accept the offered shekels as hush-money.
http://www.usslibertyveterans.org/
He thinks that the deliberate machine-gunning of life-rafts was ' accidental' . He ain't a vet worth spit.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

How would you describe the weapons issued to , for example, special forces overseas ?

They are called guns. They fire bullets. The majority of use will be at the target range. Not killing people. Can they be used for killing? Yes. But even for special forces that will not be their primary use. The guns will most certainly not be used to primarily kill innocent people.

That's part of the design process. Guns which are designed to kill people- such as those issued to persons who are employed to kill people- include firing mechanisms. Most special forces would insist that they be included.

Now you are just making shit up. Guns are not designed to kill people. They are designed to fire bullets. The purpose of the gun will depend on the user.

There are an awful lot of dead people who would disagree, if they could.

I am talking about the type of gun. There isn't a type of gun manufactured that isn't designed to be used for target shooting. Some are also good for hunting. The point is AGAIN that the guns use is determined by the owner. Not the manufacturer.

Sure it is. Guns which are designed to kill people do kill people. That's what they're for.

Again... there are no guns designed to kill people. Not one.

You're correct under the current 2005 legislation. However, that is now open to challenge and the Act should be struck down- in a sane country.

Well, you'd have to show me one that wouldn't fire when pointed at an innocent person.

Your ignorance on this topic is complete. The gun doesn't fire itself. The person does. The person chooses how to use the gun. period.

Trolling, eh ? I've tried to be courteous to you but it's evident that you're just another moronic dumbass- so I'll treat you as such from here on.

You are either a troll or an idiot. You tell us which it is.

 

[NOVA]

On the other hand, this fraudulent ' US Navy veteran ' is a neoZionist arse-licker who rejects that the crew of the USS Liberty were murdered by the Israelis and is more than willing to accept the offered shekels as hush-money.
http://www.usslibertyveterans.org/
He thinks that the deliberate machine-gunning of life-rafts was ' accidental' . He ain't a vet worth spit.

Yeah....hush money......really working to keep it all a secret.....you're a fuckin' idiot and would make an excellent Kladd.......the only reason you're not on ignore is you're entertaining.....just like desh.....

and the giggles you both provide is all free.....

Poor pathetic JewHater......

 

[moon]

this is not even remotely true, as Castle rock v. Gonzalez (among others) clearly state.

That ruling applied to Colorado and was a Supreme Court overturn. Notwithstanding, it's generally accepted that the state has a duty to defend its public.

your definition of sane needs alot of work.

No, I observe sanity with a great deal of clarity. You're sort of ' averagely normal '

 

[moon]

You are either a troll or an idiot. You tell us which it is.

In your case there's no element of doubt.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

In your case there's no element of doubt.

Poor thing. We shall relegate you to the level of Desh then.