Yeah, Bushmaster doesn't have much to worry about, but that gun store is up shi* creek without a paddle....
There's nothing wrong with the second amendment.[/quote]
theres nothing wrong with columbine and dc snipers either is there?[/quote]
Those events have nothing to do with the second amendment. Simply because children acquire guns illegally doesn't mean the second amendment is wrong or written incorrectly.
Those were tragic events caused by demented humans. Not the second amendment, not our founding fathers, and not manufacturers.[/quote]
guns dont kill people! people kill people![/quote]
Yes. So I still don't see where your comment about the second amendment fits in.[/quote]
who?[/quote]
Yours about the second amendment. Sue the framers?
Errr..... then how did he kill them??? By spitting on them? No....
Personally I don't think assault rifles should be legal. The Bill of Rights says we have a right to bare arms, not a right to own a specific model of assault rifle that has a sole purpose to kill as many people as you can. And no, they aren't made to kill animals. Assault rifles are made for war, last time I checked we haven't had an invasion or world war again rabbits.
Jugs
Ok.. define assault rifle.. I can't find any two gun banners that have the same definition.. ohh.. They're all painted black.. ban black guns!
The second amendment doesn't say anything about these weapons because they didn't exist.. So what.. You're trying to play the limitation game which becomes the total removal of rights game...
He used the gun, obviously. It wasn't an assault rifle; not fully automatic. All I'm saying is that the gun didn't move itself around, it didn't aim itself, and it didn't fire itself. It takes a malicious mind to actively aim and fire a weapon at another human. The gun didn't "force" him into it.
Personally, they should be able to to sue bushmaster, but that doesn't mean I belive they should win. If I was a lawyer for bushmaster, I would make a counter-suit for all of my fees. I think I should be able to own any gun I want. As long as the goverment is able to provide a good psychriatic(sp?) evalutation when I want to buy one.
Ok, let's run down all the parties that should be sued for his heinous act...
The car manufacter for supplying the car,
the gas manufacturer and dealer for supplying energy to the vehicle,
the power tool manufacturer for supplying the tools to make the hole in the trunk,
the sock manufacturer for supplying the sock to stuff into the hole,
the state for the roads,
the bullet manufacturer for the bullets,
the gun manufacturer for the gun,
did I miss anything else?
Obviously, the individual who committed this act is not at fault, he was tempted to do these acts by all listed above, he should not be held responsible for the sick twisted things that these businesses put into his brain. In reality we should be suing these companies, it makes common sense, if they didn't produce the product, then they couldn't be used for evil means to harm individuals. Who else is with me? I need a couple extra million in my bank account, who doesn't?
</sarcasm>
Whoever stated it is an act of freedom to sue willy-nilly, it isn't. It is pure bull$shit. We the people need to tell our congressmen and women to enact laws that will stamp out frivalous lawsuits and make the individual's and attorney's responsible for this crap to foot the entire bill of any proceedings. Cases like this clog our legal system and cost this country untold millions in money and time, it's ridiculous. Spill coffee in your lap because you try to drive and drink at the same time... sue McDonald's, get fat from not watching your diet, sue fast food restaurants, collect 2,000 coupons to buy a car, sue the dealership... YAY!!
The car manufacter for supplying the car,
the gas manufacturer and dealer for supplying energy to the vehicle,
the power tool manufacturer for supplying the tools to make the hole in the trunk,
the sock manufacturer for supplying the sock to stuff into the hole,
the state for the roads,
the bullet manufacturer for the bullets,
the gun manufacturer for the gun,
did I miss anything else?
Obviously, the individual who committed this act is not at fault, he was tempted to do these acts by all listed above, he should not be held responsible for the sick twisted things that these businesses put into his brain. In reality we should be suing these companies, it makes common sense, if they didn't produce the product, then they couldn't be used for evil means to harm individuals. Who else is with me? I need a couple extra million in my bank account, who doesn't?
</sarcasm>
Whoever stated it is an act of freedom to sue willy-nilly, it isn't. It is pure bull$shit. We the people need to tell our congressmen and women to enact laws that will stamp out frivalous lawsuits and make the individual's and attorney's responsible for this crap to foot the entire bill of any proceedings. Cases like this clog our legal system and cost this country untold millions in money and time, it's ridiculous. Spill coffee in your lap because you try to drive and drink at the same time... sue McDonald's, get fat from not watching your diet, sue fast food restaurants, collect 2,000 coupons to buy a car, sue the dealership... YAY!!
I understand what you're saying.. but think about the # of junk lawsuits going on.. it just gets worse..
Groups trying to ban guns can't get anything passed because the public doesn't want it.. SOOoooo.. they'll go through the back door and sue the companies out of existance... Not by winning, but by making them spend all of thier $$ on defending themselves from baseless charges. They could sue the for $$ back, but there's the vicious cycle.. The only ones who win are the lawyers.
You have to be able to stop lawsuits like this.. Check out Trevor law in CA.. they are suing thousands of companies under some law from 1920's and targeting small shops and resturants.. Most of them don't speak english get a letter from a law group saying "we're suing you because you missed a comma on a form" but pay us a few thousand and we'll go away.. They are making millions on baseless suits.. meanwhile the buisiness out OUT of business...
Well, in other countries if you lose a lawsuit, you end up paying their legal fees for the defense of that suit. That simple step would prevent lots of frivolous suits........tort reform is a huge priority right now. It was encouraging to see the president talking today about tort reform and putting a cap on punitive damages for medical malpractice. In some states a doctor ends up paying more than 50% of their income for insurance.....:Q
Bignate603
Lifer
- Sep 5, 2000
- 13,897
- 1
- 0
It was my understanding that one of them was foreign, and one was (partially, anyway) a native of the U.S.
Maetryx
Diamond Member
- Jan 18, 2001
- 4,849
- 1
- 81
Jugernot, Jugernot, Jugernot...
The 2nd Amendment was referring to military weapons when it was written. It was referring to armed conflicts. It had NOTHING to do with hunting and shooting for sport.
Militias (the whole body of the people) are not armed for rabbits. They are armed for war.
The first gun control law (1934) was written to allow a tax (infringement) on sawed off shotguns. The argument to allow this infringement? A sawed off shotgun is NOT a military weapon, thus it is NOT protected from infringement by the 2nd Amendment.
The 2nd Amendment SPECIFICALLY relates to military small arms, such as used by a regular army.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter