Can Sandy Hook Families Hold the Gun Industry Accountable?

moon2012 said:
You mean some officers of some agencies can kill legally while the General Joe gun customer can't ?
Click to expand...

I mean that a selected class of people get extra rights and legal protections because they serve the state, while we the people get denied these same basic rights because people are anti gun
 
SmarterthanYou said:
I mean that a selected class of people get extra rights and legal protections because they serve the state, while we the people get denied these same basic rights because people are anti gun
Click to expand...

If the populace was unarmed then an unarmed policeforce would be preferable. Take the old-fashioned UK as an example.
However, being an arms dealer and all that wouldn't suit you, now would it.
 
moon2012 said:
If the populace was unarmed then an unarmed policeforce would be preferable. Take the old-fashioned UK as an example.
Click to expand...
yes, because it all but eliminated knife crimes, assaults, rapes, muggings.......

moon2012 said:
However, being an arms dealer and all that wouldn't suit you, now would it.
Click to expand...
I am not the arms dealer, someone else on here is. However, being a freedom loving American, no. it would not suit me. I WILL keep my firearms.
 
Superfreak said:
Killing an innocent person is definitely a misuse of the gun.
Click to expand...

' Misuse ' is the wrong term when the gun is being employed to do what it was designed to do.

The nonsense that guns must be used to kill PEOPLE is absurd.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is.

Most people use guns for either target shooting or hunting. Not killing other people, especially innocent people.
Click to expand...

I agree. Some guns are specifically designed for target shooting and hunting, granted. Killing people with such weapons is a misuse of those specific weapons.

However, when a weapon designed specifically to kill people is used to kill people then ' misuse' is not a suitable term.
 
Last edited:
moon2012 said:
Can Sandy Hook Families Hold the Gun Industry Accountable?

In a sane country, yes.

The guns used in this crime were constructed for the purpose of killing. They were not bookends, paperweights or ballast. Their only purpose was to kill.

The notion that they were only intended to scare does not run as they only scare because they were constructed in order to kill.

So the manufacturer produced the guns knowing what their purpose was and took no action to prevent them being used for that purpose. The courts of a sane country would hold that manufacturer accountable.
Click to expand...

Baloney...
 
moon2012 said:
' Misuse ' is the wrong term when the gun is being employed to do what it was designed to do.



Yes, it is.



I agree. Some guns are specifically designed for target shooting and hunting, granted. Killing people with such weapons is a misuse of those specific weapons.

However, when a weapon designed specifically to kill people is used to kill people then ' misuse' is not a suitable term.
Click to expand...

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.
 
moon2012 said:
Well, if the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), 2005 can be struck down I'll be right and you'll be wrong. It might require a sympathetic new SC judge, sure- and that should be a matter of course.
Click to expand...

You mean one that hates the Constitution like you.
 
Meanwhile;


Lawyers for the Sandy Hook families have already achieved one major legal victory. Gun-industry lawyers
frequently try to move similar cases to federal courts, which have uniformly refused to permit suits against gun manufacturers for criminal actions of third parties. Bushmaster’s lawyers tried that maneuver last year, but in October a federal judge threw the case back to state court.

http://www.thenation.com/article/can-sandy-hook-families-hold-the-gun-industry-accountable/
Click to expand...
 
CFM said:
You mean one that hates the Constitution like you.
Click to expand...

The Constitution is admirable - and Constitutional lawyers have let Americans down by allowing many misinterpretations. That needs correcting and a new generation of Constitutional lawyers are on the case.

Besides, what do you care about the Constitution ? You're a self-confessed torture fan- an enemy of Americans.
 
moon2012 said:
The Constitution is admirable - and Constitutional lawyers have let Americans down by allowing many misinterpretations. That needs correcting and a new generation of Constitutional lawyers are on the case.
Click to expand...

Interesting how you define misinterpretation as being what you don't like. Not how it works.

Still won't answer whether or not I should own guns. I'll take your refusal as a yes, you don't think I should. When, may I ask, are you going to be stupid enough to try and take them from me
 
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...

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...
 
CFM said:
Interesting how you define misinterpretation as being what you don't like. Not how it works.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's how it works.

Still won't answer whether or not I should own guns. I'll take your refusal as a yes, you don't think I should. When, may I ask, are you going to be stupid enough to try and take them from me
Click to expand...

You don't even come across as adult, let alone macho. Your horde of hardware probably has orange tips.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top