A 9-year-old boy shot his older sister to death over a video game controller, sheriff

You are such an idiot. It doesn't matter how the consumer uses a product in determining whether it is inherently dangerous.

A knife is an inherently dangerous product, period. And so is a gun.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello RB 60,



Doesn't look like you will have to make that choice any time soon. The NRA is too powerful and there is far too much big money influence on Congress. And our President is a puppet of Putin, who seeks to destabilize our country by advocating for no gun restrictions what so ever. It is obviously in Putin's favor to have Americans killing one another.

Personally, I would support repealing the 2nd Amendment as written and replacing it with a more modern Amendment which still establishes a right to own firearms, but places restrictions on it. The 2nd doesn't say a word about guns. Never mentioned. It says arms. Well, that's a much bigger pickle. A MOAB is an arm, but I don't think citizens should have them. A nuclear missile equipped submarine is an arm, and I don't think individuals should have them. Nothing in the 2nd prevents the military from selling an outdated nuclear submarine as surplus. And now, we have people so rich they could afford one. Bad combination. We've seen movies about madmen seeking to take over the world and bring national governments into submission. Let's keep that as a fantasy. We need laws and the force to prevent that.
Click to expand...

hello PoliTalker ,


the second is fine


we have always had the right to limit arms under the second right like it is


these evil doers and their dupes merely are trying to retroactively reinterpret the second to cause chaos in our nation to weaken the American government and its power in the world


you can fool some of the people all the time

that is why Fox was created by the wealthy right


they want to be the new Kings
 
Hello evince,

evince said:
hello PoliTalker ,

...

these evil doers and their dupes merely are trying to retroactively reinterpret the second to cause chaos in our nation to weaken the American government and its power in the world
Click to expand...

What a strange thing to say. That doesn't sound like something an American would say.

Would you mind answering a simple question?

Just do your best to pronounce the following, and then tell me the simple answer.

Iffyew taayckkk4-D phromme aaay-D wuutzdat
 
Yaya said:
SOCK
Click to expand...

Sad Yoyo. If you cannot stand the heat stay the fuck out of the kitchen and don't fucking whine.

I fight fire with fire. If you are intelligent and have honest posts I will respond with intelligent posts. If you go into the gutter I am willing to go there too. So if you think I am a sock then look in the mirror.
 
smb said:
Sad Yoyo. If you cannot stand the heat stay the fuck out of the kitchen and don't fucking whine.

I fight fire with fire. If you are intelligent and have honest posts I will respond with intelligent posts. If you go into the gutter I am willing to go there too. So if you think I am a sock then look in the mirror.
Click to expand...

You seem like a sock. If you are not fine. I happen to mildly enjoy our debates. You give as good as you get and that is no problem with me.

You debate the issue, not just the person.

You're a moron, and there is nothing wrong with that.

:D
 
Yaya said:
Really, shocker, holy moly, great grapes batman!

Btw, in some instances you can.

Fool
Click to expand...

No you cannot. You the strict liability of portion of product liability is restricted to equipment not functioning as designed. There are portions of product liability that allow for suits when equipment works as designed but they do not fall under strict liability. In those cases you have to prove why the product is bad as designed...which means it doesn't fall under strict liability.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top