Can Sandy Hook Families Hold the Gun Industry Accountable?

CFM said:
Misuse (verb) - use in the wrong way or for the wrong purpose. Example: Someone misusing public funds.

Misuse (noun) - the wrong or improper use of something. Example: abusing prescription medications

In both cases, something designed for a specific use isn't being used for the specific intent of their creation.
Click to expand...

See that's where their insanity starts falling apart.
A gun is designed to FIRE A PROJECTILE.
It has no way of knowing where it's headed, unless liberals feel that firearms now have ID.

The person holding that weapon and pulling the trigger is the one responsible for where that PROJECTILE goes.
 
Superfreak said:
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.




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.




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.



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




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.




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

Looks like I can use my broadsword to kill someone and then blame the manufacturer; because the only thing that swords are made for, is to kill.
Same with bow and arrows, crossbows and bolts, a mace, an epee, a Bowie knife, etc.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
the numerous court opinions heavily outweigh your source from an education facility. sorry, but you're still wrong.
Click to expand...

You're correct about any agency being responsible for our protection; because the Courts have ruled that they can't protect everyone, all the time and that it's EVERYONE's responsibility to make sure they're protected.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
ok, so I have two options.

1) accept federal court decisions that spell out what the constitution affords me in the ways of police protection and what it doesn't.
2) a harvard professor of constitutional law (similar to obama) whose supposed opinions are diametrically the opposite of what the courts have said...

gee, I think i'll have to side with the courts on this one.
Click to expand...


If you feel that the Constitution affords you no protection and you accept that then you're missing the opportunity to engage with any move to apply the Constitution more positively and in the spirit its writers intended. I'd prefer to think of it as a safeguard that no administration could override and look favourably upon any attempts to have it properly applied in law. It seems to me that you accept negativity too easily. That's your choice.
 
Originally Posted by NOVA
No one in the entire world has ever seen a gun kill anyone, except maybe by mishandling, ....only people use inanimate objects to kill another
Click to expand...

Fraud, this transparent defence of lethal weapons characterizes your extremely low morality threshold.

A gun which is specifically designed to kill people has one primary purpose. Can you guess what that is ? No, probably not.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
You're correct about any agency being responsible for our protection; because the Courts have ruled that they can't protect everyone, all the time and that it's EVERYONE's responsibility to make sure they're protected.
Click to expand...

you're sorta right. sorta wrong. the courts opinion actually stated that no individual is owed police protection unless some special relationship with the police is imposed...i.e. custody for example. they later stated that the police are not there to protect individuals, only society at large.
 
moon2012 said:
If you feel that the Constitution affords you no protection and you accept that then you're missing the opportunity to engage with any move to apply the Constitution more positively and in the spirit its writers intended. I'd prefer to think of it as a safeguard that no administration could override and look favourably upon any attempts to have it properly applied in law. It seems to me that you accept negativity too easily. That's your choice.
Click to expand...

this little tidbit above cements for me the opinion that you're a nutcase with no foundation of reality.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
you're sorta right. sorta wrong. the courts opinion actually stated that no individual is owed police protection unless some special relationship with the police is imposed...i.e. custody for example. they later stated that the police are not there to protect individuals, only society at large.
Click to expand...

That's what I was stating, you just placed it in a different format.
We, the people, are responsible for making sure that we are safe and have no implied right to expect protection from anyone else.
 
Konono said:
When you mentioned "bars do" you weren't comparing the two?
Click to expand...

Good luck getting that dishonorable piece of shit to admit to the fact that he was comparing the two. He doesn't have the guts to admit he did compare the two.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
See that's where their insanity starts falling apart.
A gun is designed to FIRE A PROJECTILE.
It has no way of knowing where it's headed, unless liberals feel that firearms now have ID.

The person holding that weapon and pulling the trigger is the one responsible for where that PROJECTILE goes.
Click to expand...

Congratulations upon adding ' projectile ' to your vocabulary, Polly. Your logic is still lacking, however.

The projectile is , of course, directed by the barrel which has been specially designed by the manufacturer of the intentionally lethal ammunition and the intentionally lethal weapon to ensure that it terminates the life of the person it hits. While the intent of the perpetrator might be unclear the intent of the manufacturer is not. Death is the intent of the manufacturer of any gun designed to kill. This is evident , I guess, across a range of advertising literature designed to convince any prospective purchaser of the lethality of the product.
Bearing in mind that , currently, such manufacturers are not held accountable for the carnage facilitated by their products the anti-gun lobby should, and probably already has, insisted upon advertising controls and I'd be interested to know how these read.
There ya go- there's a positive task for you . How do manufacturers of deliberately lethal weapons sell their products without mentioning what they're for ? Is the purpose, perhaps, implied ?

This Israeli army T-shirt is quite explicit. It openly states that Israelis can kill twice with one shot by shooting a pregnant women through the womb;

15245789-736x414.jpg

http://news.sky.com/story/678761/israeli-army-t-shirts-mock-gaza-killings


Israel is a fascist and racist state, of course, and you wouldn't expect to see such advertising in the USA-.........yet. Is it unimaginable that the likes of Donald Trump would wear these in public office ? They would have the intent of lethal weapons manufacturers right behind them.
 
Last edited:
moon2012 said:
The projectile is , of course, directed by the barrel which has been specially designed by the manufacturer of the intentionally lethal ammunition and the intentionally lethal weapon to ensure that it terminates the life of the person it hits. While the intent of the perpetrator might be unclear the intent of the manufacturer is not. Death is the intent of the manufacturer of any gun designed to kill. This is evident , I guess, across a range of advertising literature designed to convince any prospective purchaser of the lethality of the product.
Click to expand...


capacity_zps094153e5.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top