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.
I, along with millions of others are not that gullible. Don't play me for an idiot, please!
It freaking blows the door wide open... and you freak'n know it. Don't play me with this idiotic statement.
You are gullible. The tobacco lawsuit was against the industry, not a brand. This suit is comparable to a tobacco suit vs one specific brand. Individual gun models are like brands, Marlboro, for instance.
If the manufacturer knew that there was a risk of the gun getting into a criminal's hands, and did nothing or not enough about it, they would absolutely be liable. Proving that was the case, however, is a long shot.
I believe the bill of right and especially the 2nd amendment has the word People. It does not say citizen, it does not say people 18 years or older, it does not say people that are non-criminals.
Now for some odd reason, the courts have determined the word "people", does say all that.
In other words the constitution has not been changed by the people amending it. It has be serverely altered by the Presidents politically appointed bench and judges making the determination that is in their minds what it should say. But the text clearly doesn't. How they get around, "shall not be infringed", is criminal.
Then at the change of the 1900's, Constitutional law was thrown in the trash, for Precedent law.
You are gullible. The tobacco lawsuit was against the industry, not a brand. This suit is comparable to a tobacco suit vs one specific brand. Individual gun models are like brands, Marlboro, for instance.
You saying in the day of Precedent law over Constitutional law, this is not blowing the door wide open for each and every gun manufacture to be loaded with lawsuits of this very same nature?
Which might not be a complete industry at once lawsuit, but the intention is just that?
You are gullible. The tobacco lawsuit was against the industry, not a brand. This suit is comparable to a tobacco suit vs one specific brand. Individual gun models are like brands, Marlboro, for instance.
Could you give a plausible scenario or two where Bushmaster could have known ahead of time what Lanza was planning to do?
That's pretty core to the lawsuit, and should be easy to answer before continuing.
You saying in the day of Precedent law over Constitutional law, this is not blowing the door wide open for each and every gun manufacture to be loaded with lawsuits of this very same nature?
Which might not be a complete industry at once lawsuit, but the intention is just that?
I am, similar guns would be affected, but not the vast majority. Unlike cigarettes, this is NOT a homogenous product. A key difference.
Could you give a plausible scenario or two where Bushmaster could have known ahead of time what Lanza was planning to do?
That's pretty core to the lawsuit, and should be easy to answer before continuing.
Unlike the plaintiffs, I have no access to their marketing, but we will see it soon via discovery. If it was proper to avoid the wrong types being targeted as customers, Remington will win. If not, they will lose. That is an exception carved out in the legislation you gun fans love to discuss. Who was the target customer? Tobacco got crushed by advertising to the "wrong types".
Did the firearm operate as intended?
Did the firearm operate not as intended?
Was the firearm well regulated in its accuracy?
Did the firearm perform in a manner it was not designed to do?
Could you give a plausible scenario or two where Bushmaster could have known ahead of time what Lanza was planning to do?
That's pretty core to the lawsuit, and should be easy to answer before continuing.
This is a quote from the Article, at which is the core of the law suit.
"Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis ruled that the law "does not prevent lawyers for the families of Sandy Hook victims from arguing that the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle is a military weapon and should not have been sold to civilians," The Associated Press reports."
A judge does not believe that the AR-15 belongs in civilian hands, and is allowing the suit to go forward based on her beliefs. Despite the fact that the AR-15 is a legally allowed to be owned by civilians, with the proper identification.
Unlike the plaintiffs, I have no access to their marketing, but we will see it soon via discovery. If it was proper to avoid the wrong types being targeted as customers, Remington will win. If not, they will lose. That is an exception carved out in the legislation you gun fans love to discuss. Who was the target customer? Tobacco got crushed by advertising to the "wrong types".
What is the "wrong types" of customers??? I believe the 2nd amendment says, "people" It is not specific to the type of people.
Tobacco does not have a Constitutional amendment, protecting it from government intervention.
This is a quote from the Article, at which is the core of the law suit.
"Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis ruled that the law "does not prevent lawyers for the families of Sandy Hook victims from arguing that the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle is a military weapon and should not have been sold to civilians," The Associated Press reports."
.
The discovery process is what will ultimately yield the decision in either direction. Just like tobacco. The marketing targets are the key.
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.
Don't play me as a idiot.
