SpaceCritter
NES Member
If they get what they want, it ends when there are no more guns at all.
Why no, no it won't:
New 'Knife Control' Policies in London
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.
If they get what they want, it ends when there are no more guns at all.
not really sure how Remington is responsible. The gun was sold to someone who had the proper licensing and credentials to buy it. She was tortured until she gave the the key or combo to her safe and then killed if I remember correctly. Then the gun was then stolen and used for this event. Neither Remington or the gun shop sold that firearm to the lunatic.
So I do not see how either would be responsible.
Sue the town police that issued the mother's firearm permit.
Sue the state that allowed the firearm to be sold to the mom.
Sue the Federal government for allowing the background check to go through.
Sue the car manufacturer of the vehicle Adam used to drive to the school that day.
Sue the gas company of the fuel used in said vehicle.
Sue the tire company that manufactured the tires that allowed the vehicle to roll to the school.
Sue the all the parts and suppliers of anything used by Adam and his mother in the commitment of said murders since they were both born of this world.
Sue the food store that supplied the food that Adam consumed before this atrocity.
Sue the doctors and pharmaceutical companies of the drugs that failed to stop his killings.
Lastly sue the lawyers that even thought that any of these had any reason to be guilty of anything. When it was clear as day that Adam was to blame!
I doubt that it's going to end in CT.
I'm hoping that the useful idiots end up with crippling debt over it.
Like the other suit that was mentioned, the ones egging them on from behind will vanish like roaches into the woodwork and leave them holding the bag.
You would hope considering existing law is crystal clear on this.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.
In Connecticut, apparently so, and despite any federal law that explicitly says you can't.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?
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?
which liberals like to pick and choose what they follow and prosecute.
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.This is sane rational thinking. These people don't function that way. They're totally irrational and insane.
In that RI nightclub fire everybody got sued, but they all settled. I think Heineken got sued because their name was on the coasters.
And of course, this happened:
Appeals court rules gun owner isn’t liable after shot from stolen weapon kills teen
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.
The only one responsible is the person who pulled the trigger, thats it.
The courts failed.
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.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.