Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
]So the Right gives full control of their duty to write laws to the gun lobby, the gun lobby writes themselves a free pass, and you think the "leftists" are the ones abusing the judicial system? [/b] Unbelievable. Did you feel the same way when both Obama and GWB handed the reigns to the Insurance and Pharma industries (respectively)? I bet not. At least on one of those two examples....
Congress writes laws. People vote in those Congress critters.
Now if those elected officials spend their time doing the bidding of lobbyists and the people know this and don't care then it's the people's fault, not the business entity.
Max Baucus was fully owned by the insurance industry and he was in Congress, and "authored" (very loosely termed) Obamacare.
Its an interview with the parents of a dead child and the OP is fixated on blaming "*******s" and whether a shotgun or pistol could have killed more children.
His mother was his first victim if I am not mistaken. Theft is theft. The guns weren't loaned, sold or rented to him by the owner. They were in fact taken. That is normally called theft.
A to of people have been robbed by people that lived with them. Are you saying that a son or daughter can't rob their parents simply because the offspring also happen to live with the parent?
Well to be fair she was dead before her son stole her guns, and it would be a first that someone dead lived up to their responsibilities, given that the phrase includes the term "lived" it infers "living", since mama Lanza had expired I don't think she can be held responsible for not living up to her responsibilities.
While people can say "these people have a right to grieve in their own way" that's true they do, and people also have the right to evaluated on their behavior during grieving. So yes it's perfectly fair to begrudge how they grieve, we would begrudge them their grief if they broke into a Freedom Arms board meeting and murdered the board, there are many limitations on people's behaviors even during grief. Call me heartless if you wish, but really we're just arguing scope, if it's not ok to kill people because of grief, then we've already established that there are limitations on behaviors during grieving.
But no matter what, she didn't take proper foresight. Either she was blatantly negligent in her son's problems or just obliviously negligent with her son's problems and the availability of guns. That or she thought "not my son..."
His mother was his first victim if I am not mistaken. Theft is theft. The guns weren't loaned, sold or rented to him by the owner. They were in fact taken. That is normally called theft.
A to of people have been robbed by people that lived with them. Are you saying that a son or daughter can't rob their parents simply because the offspring also happen to live with the parent?
To use theft in this case is a stretch. A gun in the house you live in if in a private room is theft. There's no proof that the mother hid the gun in her room with a lockbox or anything making it for the most part cloudy. For all we know it was in a common area like say a basement or garage, thus making it not exactly theft. I will agree that you can "rob" people you live with but this isn't theft her unless there is a smoking gun of it being hid in her bedroom. You're grasping and reaching with the assertion that this was indeed theft. Plain and simple, the mother shouldn't have had the guns in her house with the disabilities her son had.
To use theft in this case is a stretch. A gun in the house you live in if in a private room is theft. There's no proof that the mother hid the gun in her room with a lockbox or anything making it for the most part cloudy. For all we know it was in a common area like say a basement or garage, thus making it not exactly theft. I will agree that you can "rob" people you live with but this isn't theft her unless there is a smoking gun of it being hid in her bedroom. You're grasping and reaching with the assertion that this was indeed theft. Plain and simple, the mother shouldn't have had the guns in her house with the disabilities her son had.
I agree!! She shouldn't have had those guns accessible to her son.
That said, Unless she allowed the son to use these guns at will, him taking them without consent is theft. No different than say her son taking the car without permission or taking money from her purse without permission. The shooter killed his mother then took the guns to the school to do his killing. Given the fact that he killed mom first I doubt that she gave him permission to borrow the guns.
Your post also shows that Remington isn't at fault in any way. They sold the gun to a dealer. The dealer sold the gun to the mother. Neither the dealer nor Remington had anything to do with the shooter. In this country we have the chronic need to sue someone. Neither guilt nor fault matter.
I see the good old-fashioned liberal pastime of blaming the victim is alive and well on this thread.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
