Future pathway to sensible gun reform,

A

archives

Verified User
"Appeal offers hope for Newtown families in suit against gun companies"

"Supporters believe that if the court clears the way for a jury trial, the gun companies’ internal communications — which the companies have fought fiercely to keep private — would surface in discovery, a potentially revealing and damaging glimpse into the industry and how it operates."

"It could also chart a legal road map for the survivors and relatives of victims in other mass shootings as they pursue accountability."

“It doesn’t make any sense at all that these products are free of liability,” David Wheeler said in a recent interview. “It’s not a level playing field. It’s not American capitalistic business practice as we know it. It’s just not right.”

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/na...n-companies/kBtGdN7pg8I2fJGcdy1F7O/story.html

Given that the majority of politicians are gutless when it comes to addressing the inanity of guns in America, getting anything started legislatively is useless, as I've noted, if young kids getting massacred in a schoolroom by semiautomatic weapons didn't produce anything nothing will

However, as we see here, directly attacking the gun manufacturers offers an avenue with real potential, and, erases all the bogus employment of the Second Amendment as a counter arguememt. Definitely the way to go, address the problem at its source
 
archives said:
"Appeal offers hope for Newtown families in suit against gun companies"

"Supporters believe that if the court clears the way for a jury trial, the gun companies’ internal communications — which the companies have fought fiercely to keep private — would surface in discovery, a potentially revealing and damaging glimpse into the industry and how it operates."

"It could also chart a legal road map for the survivors and relatives of victims in other mass shootings as they pursue accountability."

“It doesn’t make any sense at all that these products are free of liability,” David Wheeler said in a recent interview. “It’s not a level playing field. It’s not American capitalistic business practice as we know it. It’s just not right.”

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/na...n-companies/kBtGdN7pg8I2fJGcdy1F7O/story.html

Given that the majority of politicians are gutless when it comes to addressing the inanity of guns in America, getting anything started legislatively is useless, as I've noted, if young kids getting massacred in a schoolroom by semiautomatic weapons didn't produce anything nothing will

However, as we see here, directly attacking the gun manufacturers offers an avenue with real potential, and, erases all the bogus employment of the Second Amendment as a counter arguememt. Definitely the way to go, address the problem at its source
Click to expand...

Should we also sue automobile manufacturers when drunk drivers cause accidents?
What's the difference?
 
RB 60 said:
Should we also sue automobile manufacturers when drunk drivers cause accidents?
What's the difference?
Click to expand...

Quite a bit, modern life would be impossible without cars. Whereas life wouldn't change much, if at all, were guns to be eliminated or severely curtailed. Naturally this would mean going after gangs in a major way, something that should have been done long ago.

Sent from my Lenovo K8 Note using Tapatalk
 
Corazón said:
Quite a bit, modern life would be impossible without cars. Whereas life wouldn't change much, if at all, were guns to be eliminated or severely curtailed. Naturally this would mean going after gangs in a major way, something that should have been done long ago.
Click to expand...

you're delusional
 
Guns kill
So do cars
Utility argument
Silence.

Lather rinse repeat on the internet 500 million times per second.
 
OK now let's pivot to total bullshit sovereign citizen arguments, like some redneck's toy is going to save me from a government that has civilian control and a free press.
 
Or we could talk what about arms meant in 1800 when I could single handedly take out the entire US military circa George Washington with a couple machine guns and enough ammo.
 
Micawber said:
OK now let's pivot to total bullshit sovereign citizen arguments, like some redneck's toy is going to save me from a government that has civilian control and a free press.
Click to expand...

you're daft if you think our government is controlled by the populace anymore. you're even stupider if you believe that the police are under civilian control.
 
Micawber said:
Or we could talk what about arms meant in 1800 when I could single handedly take out the entire US military circa George Washington with a couple machine guns and enough ammo.
Click to expand...

The government (establishment) has been very effective at manipulating the idiots and fools about the 2nd Amendment for over a century. YOU are included in that group of idiots and fools.
 
archives said:
"Appeal offers hope for Newtown families in suit against gun companies"

"Supporters believe that if the court clears the way for a jury trial, the gun companies’ internal communications — which the companies have fought fiercely to keep private — would surface in discovery, a potentially revealing and damaging glimpse into the industry and how it operates."

"It could also chart a legal road map for the survivors and relatives of victims in other mass shootings as they pursue accountability."

“It doesn’t make any sense at all that these products are free of liability,” David Wheeler said in a recent interview. “It’s not a level playing field. It’s not American capitalistic business practice as we know it. It’s just not right.”

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/na...n-companies/kBtGdN7pg8I2fJGcdy1F7O/story.html

Given that the majority of politicians are gutless when it comes to addressing the inanity of guns in America, getting anything started legislatively is useless, as I've noted, if young kids getting massacred in a schoolroom by semiautomatic weapons didn't produce anything nothing will

However, as we see here, directly attacking the gun manufacturers offers an avenue with real potential, and, erases all the bogus employment of the Second Amendment as a counter arguememt. Definitely the way to go, address the problem at its source
Click to expand...

So the manufacturer of products is responsible for how individuals choose to use said items? So if a person rents a truck and then drives into a crowd, the auto manufacturer should be held responsible? Or is it the rental company? Or both?
 
Corazón said:
Quite a bit, modern life would be impossible without cars. Whereas life wouldn't change much, if at all, were guns to be eliminated or severely curtailed. Naturally this would mean going after gangs in a major way, something that should have been done long ago.

Sent from my Lenovo K8 Note using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I have a number of firearms, from flintlock rifles, cap and ball pistols, assorted single action, double action and semi auto handguns, extremely accurate hunting rifles and military issued rifles.
Not one of them (under my ownership) has ever posed a threat to anyone, ever.
The point being, and referring to my above post, is that manufacturers shouldn't be held responsible for the misuse of their products unless there is a manufacturing defect. There are laws against driving drunk, just as there are laws against harming people with firearms. Unfortunately, people break those laws.
 
evince said:
killing people is not what cars are designed to do



killing people is what guns are designed to do
Click to expand...

No, guns are meant to fire bullets. That is what they are designed to do. Those bullets can be fired at animals for food, at targets for sport or they can be used against people in self defense, suicide, murder.

You pretending otherwise doesn't change the FACTS.
 
RB 60 said:
Should we also sue automobile manufacturers when drunk drivers cause accidents?
What's the difference?
Click to expand...

You’re not going to try the absurd car/gun analogy again, are you? It failed the first multiple thousand times. It doesn’t improve with age.
 
Superfreak said:
So the manufacturer of products is responsible for how individuals choose to use said items? So if a person rents a truck and then drives into a crowd, the auto manufacturer should be held responsible? Or is it the rental company? Or both?
Click to expand...

Nope, moron.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top