Sandy Hook Families Get Hearing Against Gun Maker

leftist stupidity knows no bounds

Hopefully the courts will see through this smoke screen as well. I could write paragraphs on this BS topic. I won't bore you with my "conspiracy" theories.

Utter bullsh****.
The kid that did that shooting was a fuc.....ed up person who should have been in a nut house. His family is the problem , most especially his dead mother. You don't buy a gun for an autistic and oppositional defiant person plain and simple.
The gun company did nothing wrong!

So if he had used an axe would the family want to sue Stanley Tool for the same thing? Or if he had gone in that school with a baseball bat, would they sue Louisville Slugger? I promise you that with either of these mentioned items you could kill just as many people as that sick SOB did, unless there was someone there armed and trained to use the weapon! End of rant.

The parents of those dead children can write books about their pain and suffering! If you have a different opinion about gun rights, that is your right! To attack the parents of the children who died at Sandy Hook (leftist stupidity ...conspiracy theories ... BS) is not the way I would want to advance my position.

Scott Slough said:

(leftist stupidity ...conspiracy theories ... BS) is not the way I would want to advance my position.

Click to expand...

Misplaced responsibility in the end, that if successful sets a scary precedent. Drunk drivers kill roughly the same number of people per year as do guns in the U.S. Yet you can't turn on the television without seeing ads for alcohol or automobiles, whereas gun commercials are pretty much limited to the outdoor shows. If this lawsuit is successful, it opens up the alcoholic beverage companies and automobile manufacturers to the same types of lawsuits where it's always someone else's fault other than the one who actually committed the crime.

I find this to be a characteristic of the movement of this country over time towards a nanny state and less of one that encourages individual reliance and responsibility.

PHOENIX PHIL said:

Misplaced responsibility in the end, that if successful sets a scary precedent. Drunk drivers kill roughly the same number of people per year as do guns in the U.S. Yet you can't turn on the television without seeing ads for alcohol or automobiles, whereas gun commercials are pretty much limited to the outdoor shows. If this lawsuit is successful, it opens up the alcoholic beverage companies and automobile manufacturers to the same types of lawsuits where it's always someone else's fault other than the one who actually committed the crime.

I find this to be a characteristic of the movement of this country over time towards a nanny state and less of one that encourages individual reliance and responsibility.

Click to expand...

amen brother

It's tragic that our courts are allowed to be misused and allow litigation like this to go forward. The concept , that the rifle manufacturer is somehow responsible because it manufactured a weapon that could be used as an efficient killing machine is absurd. As another previously stated, The legal basis, known as “negligent entrustment,” is usually applied to shops that illegally sell weapons to the wrong people. The weapon was not sold to Adam Lanza, it was sold to his mother. There is no way a manufacturer could foresee a situation where a person such as Adam would kill his mother to gain access to her firearms and then subsequently go on a shooting spree. The case fails for this reason alone without even addressing the merits of the plaintiffs case.
The reason legislation was passed in 2005 indemnifying gun manufactures was to avoid these cases from being filed in our court systems. The fact that the judge has allowed this case to proceed this far is a miscarriage of justice.

The pain and suffering these parents have endured is incomprehensible; it's only natural to lash out to find someone to take responsibility for their tragic loss. Unfortunately, the responsible party is dead. Adam Lanza's mother not only allowed her emotionally disturbed son access to firearms she encouraged his participation in the sport. If Adams own mother was blind to the possible ramifications of Adams destructive tendencies how could a third party manufacturer?

Scott Slough said:

The parents of those dead children can write books about their pain and suffering! If you have a different opinion about gun rights, that is your right! To attack the parents of the children who died at Sandy Hook (leftist stupidity ...conspiracy theories ... BS) is not the way I would want to advance my position.

Click to expand...

I stand by what I've said. The legal action brought against the maker of the rifle is BS! Don't disagree that the families have endured great pain. My hope for them is that Almighty God will give them peace. No other source of love and compassion can will ease their burden but he!
They will however, find no peace in a lawsuit that is drawn out over a long period of time. If they were to prevail I dare say compensation, money, will not assuage their pain and suffering.
I also would suggest that the families of the lost are not advancing this action of their own accord. The term "ambulance chaser" comes to mind.
In our court system today nets are cast far and wide to place % of blame!
In my mind....Ms Lanza is to blame but can not answer for what happened because her own flesh and blood took her life. Bushmaster did not kill Ms Lanza or those poor little babies and their teachers.

I'm going to sue Crown Royal for the dumb shit that it has made me do! Oh wait, I was responsible for my actions! What a revelation, personal accountability!

CAustin said:

I stand by what I've said. The legal action brought against the maker of the rifle is BS! Don't disagree that the families have endured great pain. My hope for them is that Almighty God will give them peace. No other source of love and compassion can will ease their burden but he!
They will however, find no peace in a lawsuit that is drawn out over a long period of time. If they were to prevail I dare say compensation, money, will not assuage their pain and suffering.
I also would suggest that the families of the lost are not advancing this action of their own accord. The term "ambulance chaser" comes to mind.
In our court system today nets are cast far and wide to place % of blame!
In my mind....Ms Lanza is to blame but can not answer for what happened because her own flesh and blood took her life. Bushmaster did not kill Ms Lanza or those poor little babies and their teachers.

Click to expand...

I also stand by what I said as well (which I wrote and posted before your reply was posted on my machine), which is why my full name is ALWAYS attached to anything that I post on this discussion board or any other place in the world.

I disagree with the merits of the legal case, but pass NO judgment on the motives or actions of survivors or parents due to the unimaginable pain that they will/do go through before receiving his grace.

This is the world we live in. If Hillary is elected the second amendment is going to be under more pressure than ever. Also and this could be even worse is the death of Supreme Court Justice Scalia. If Obama gets his way then we will have a minority, extremely liberal, anti-gun Justice nominated. The Parents of the Child victims and the spouses and relatives of the other victims have had left wing politicians and anti-gun groups whispering in their ears about the evil gun makers etc. In their grief and anger they are wanting to strike out towards anyone they deem responsible. Who can blame them. If our people don't vote and support groups like the NRA we could lose our rights.

Scott Slough said:

The parents of those dead children can write books about their pain and suffering! If you have a different opinion about gun rights, that is your right! To attack the parents of the children who died at Sandy Hook (leftist stupidity ...conspiracy theories ... BS) is not the way I would want to advance my position.

Click to expand...

Then don't!

Bullthrower338 said:

I'm going to sue Crown Royal for the dumb shit that it has made me do! Oh wait, I was responsible for my actions! What a revelation, personal accountability!

Click to expand...

I'm going to sue every girl I saw wearing a mini-skirt or short pants before I was married.
Talk about causing someone to do some dumb stuff!!!

Savage Hunter said:

I'm going to sue every girl I saw wearing a mini-skirt or short pants before I was married.
Talk about causing someone to do some dumb stuff!!!

Click to expand...

Savage Hunter you got that wrong. Sue the maker of the mini skirts!

I admit to a little surprise at the vehemence of some of the posts here. As for rights and responsibilities, we surely agree that people can sue whoever they want. And if you don't agree, I assume you want to be the one to decide which lawsuits go ahead and which don't. At least until it's your lawsuit that someone else decides has no merit, without a hearing.

I assume a lawyer or anti-gun organization approached some of these parents with a proposal for a lawsuit, and in their pain and suffering (I can imagine no worse suffering than the loss of a child in these circumstances - it's our job as fathers to protect our children, and here we are helpless . . . ), they decided to try. Likely on the ground that "if one gun stays out of the wrong hands" . . . .etc. I don't agree with that reasoning, but I won't criticize these families for that. Grief expresses itself in many ways, and I don't think any one of us should be judging how someone else expresses their grief.

So now it's up to the gatekeepers - the courts - to decide if this lawsuit has merit. Note that the article says "the case faces long odds based on a string of dismissals." As you'd expect, this case is likely a loser.

So perhaps we can save the vitriol until there is actually a decision that imposes some liability.

Cars, knives, ferterlizer, diesel, gasoline, baseball bats. Many things that could be used recklessly.

Hank2211 said:

I admit to a little surprise at the vehemence of some of the posts here. As for rights and responsibilities, we surely agree that people can sue whoever they want. And if you don't agree, I assume you want to be the one to decide which lawsuits go ahead and which don't. At least until it's your lawsuit that someone else decides has no merit, without a hearing.

I assume a lawyer or anti-gun organization approached some of these parents with a proposal for a lawsuit, and in their pain and suffering (I can imagine no worse suffering than the loss of a child in these circumstances - it's our job as fathers to protect our children, and here we are helpless . . . ), they decided to try. Likely on the ground that "if one gun stays out of the wrong hands" . . . .etc. I don't agree with that reasoning, but I won't criticize these families for that. Grief expresses itself in many ways, and I don't think any one of us should be judging how someone else expresses their grief.

So now it's up to the gatekeepers - the courts - to decide if this lawsuit has merit. Note that the article says "the case faces long odds based on a string of dismissals." As you'd expect, this case is likely a loser.

So perhaps we can save the vitriol until there is actually a decision that imposes some liability.

Click to expand...

well reasoned post. The individuals worthy of our vitriol are the lowlife, bottom feeding lawyers

Hank2211 said:

I admit to a little surprise at the vehemence of some of the posts here. As for rights and responsibilities, we surely agree that people can sue whoever they want. And if you don't agree, I assume you want to be the one to decide which lawsuits go ahead and which don't. At least until it's your lawsuit that someone else decides has no merit, without a hearing.

I assume a lawyer or anti-gun organization approached some of these parents with a proposal for a lawsuit, and in their pain and suffering (I can imagine no worse suffering than the loss of a child in these circumstances - it's our job as fathers to protect our children, and here we are helpless . . . ), they decided to try. Likely on the ground that "if one gun stays out of the wrong hands" . . . .etc. I don't agree with that reasoning, but I won't criticize these families for that. Grief expresses itself in many ways, and I don't think any one of us should be judging how someone else expresses their grief.

So now it's up to the gatekeepers - the courts - to decide if this lawsuit has merit. Note that the article says "the case faces long odds based on a string of dismissals." As you'd expect, this case is likely a loser.

So perhaps we can save the vitriol until there is actually a decision that imposes some liability.

Click to expand...

Actually, our country is fairly unique, thanks to the lobbying power of trial lawyers, in the ability of citizens to file suit without consequences against almost anyone for any reason. Regardless of any families' real anguish, it is ridiculous to sue the gun manufacturer. Much of this frivolous nonsense would end when real tort reform finally occurs.