If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS June Giveaway ***Mossberg Plinkster***
Guest Monadnock & NES Need your Help!!!
Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by VTski4x4, Mar 14, 2019.
Why no, no it won't:
New 'Knife Control' Policies in London
This is sane rational thinking. These people don't function that way. They're totally irrational and insane.
The lawsuit should be against the government for violating the 2A of the teachers and staff which left them completely defenseless and easily slaughtered.
This is clearly an "interstate commerce" issue, therefore congress is to blame. Sue them individually, too.
They won't end up in any debt probably. The other case only ended that way because colorado has a law in place that allows defendants in frivolous lawsuits to dump their lawyer and court fees on the one that launched the suit.
Edit: quick google says CT does have something like that in place but IANAL and don't know if it would apply in this case.
You would hope considering existing law is crystal clear on this.
How does this get to SCOTUS? Does someone now have to sue CT In Federal court regarding this ruling or can it jump from CT direct to SCOTUS?
The problem with your ad is in the 1950's people who had mental issues were put in state hospitals so they could not become a problem to society. The liberals and ACLU decided it was inhumane and they were better off living on their own so now those who were once housed now walk freely and kill liberals.
If I am understanding this correctly I can sue Monsanto for engineering the seeds that the farmer used to grow the wheat that the brewery used to make the beer that the bar sold me the night I got arrested for drunk driving?
In Connecticut, apparently so, and despite any federal law that explicitly says you can't.
Not yet. You can sue the manufacturer of the product. Next shoe to drop will be suing the manufacturers of the components.
If I were a lawyer I would end this in 2 seconds.
These are not military weapons. Done.
I hope the families have to cover legal costs when they lose.
The courts are broken, are government is broken, and it's only going to get worse. Glad I am getting toward the latter part of my life. Things were better 40 years ago.
Funny I don’t remember any ads for a bushmaster same as issued to the military and will shoot up your local school as an added bonus. So be the first kid on the block to get one!
Unbelievable. Flies in the face of Federal law, which liberals like to pick and choose what they follow and prosecute.
Not to mention the precedent that it sets. Like an earlier poster identified, car companies can be sued for illegal use of their products as well as any company
Progs - and Donks are Progs - don't assign definite meanings to words, so it should come as no surprise.
According to AOC Remingtons bankers should be held liable also.
"Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., exposed her economic ignorance again this week when she argued that bankers should be liable for borrowers' mistakes.
During Capitol Hill testimony from Wells Fargo CEO Timothy Sloan, Ocasio-Cortez contended that if in the event of an oil spill on the Dakota Access Pipeline, which Wells Fargo helped finance, the bank should be held responsible.
"If there was a leak from the Dakota Access Pipeline," Ocasio-Cortez asked rhetorically, "why shouldn’t Wells Fargo pay for the cleanup of it, since it paid for the construction of the pipeline itself?”
"Because we don't operate the project," Sloan responded. "We provide financing to the company that’s operating the pipeline.”
This is getting embarrassing."
Ocasio-Cortez again proves she's clueless on economics
Read the Bible. These people are far worse than irrational and insane. They are locusts. Their worldview is predicated upon the idea that there is no higher moral authority than themselves. Therefore, there is no consequence for imposing their “do whatever feels good and right at the time” mentality on others via an ever-more empowered government.
The reasons why there was a settlement in the Station Nightclub Fire case were: 1) one of the owners was prosecuted and found guilty at a criminal trial, thus seriously crippling any defense argument in a civil case; and 2) the owners were broke before the fire, never mind after.
And of course, this happened:
Appeals court rules gun owner isn’t liable after shot from stolen weapon kills teen
You mean the person who literally did not do anything wrong was found not responsible for the actions of a thief and murderer? Shocker.
How was the 'marketing' relevant in any way? Lanza didn't buy the Remington gun, having decided it was the most killy rifle he could find, based on a what, magazine advertisement(?).
It was the ONLY ONE in his mother's gun safe, so he stole it. Wouldn't have mattered what brand it was, that was the only one available TO steal.
So the 'marketing' nonsense is just that -- nonsense. There's no evidence he ever saw a Remington advertisement ever in his life, anyway.
If anything, they'd have a better shot suing the video game companies for warping his fragile mind.
Put me among those who say these Newtown families should have to reimburse Remington for all costs related to this frivolous suit. Something's got to end this nonsense, and triple court costs would go a long way.
That's easy. It was relevant because it was the only edge that judges who already decided what public policy they want could find in the PLCAA to let the lawsuit go forward. They don't care what the law is, this is the "Because guns" doctrine.
I heard yesterday that the AR was never in the school and seem to remember that. All the shooting was from a handgun(s) and the AR was in the car trunk outside.
So, why is this even going to court?
So to get this whole thing straight, a guy drives to a local bar, has a few drinks, buys a bottle at a liquor store and eventually causes a loss of life or physical injury to another driver that he hit. So now, even though he was not drunk at either location he had purchased alcohol, the lawsuit will be against the bar, liquor store and the auto manufacturer. Chevy gets sued for a drunk driver.
This ruling uses quite a bit of mental gymnastics to justify allowing this to proceed.
Using the oft-quoted "Can I sue Ford when a drunk driver kills someone", the parallel would be:
Ford trucks produce off-roading advertisements that glorify driving in off-road environments, associating that with masculinity and having a "man card". They even compared their Truck to Chevy where some "wimpy" men go over a speed bump in a mall parking lot. Therefore, they are responsible when some nutjob went off-roading and intentionally drove over a bunch of schoolchildren going on a hike. Because of the marketing, they can be sued.
Today's courts are no longer full of judges. More like court jesters. They're all political puppets. They need to be purged of all the corruption.
Well, the analogy would only hold if there was also a federal law that specifically stated an auto manufacturer could not be sued for misuse of their products.
The ‘offending’ ad in question. So, under the CT Supreme Court’s majority ruling, Nancy Lanza was looking to get her man card because she was the purchaser. Makes total sense. Her son stole the weapon from her. He was never a/the buyer. He never attempted a purchase. This decision becomes more and more illogical and ideologically ‘guns bad’ than when it was announced.
Separate names with a comma.