Supreme Court lets Sandy Hook families' lawsuit against gunmaker proceed

Normally I would agree, the suit lacks merit on many levels, if it ever gets to a jury I wouldn't have any faith in them understanding that. I honestly can't believe this case has gotten this far, that alone is a travesty of justice...

 

Am surprised with the ruling, we will see where it goes from here.

 

if they prevail, it will be like what happened to the cigarette industry, which I also feel was wrong, but it could happen, the dangerous precedent was already set by that case

 

Just to clarify, the suit is attacking the way that Remington marketed the Bushmaster.

 

True! What next alchohol...

 

The possible hopefull good thing is that the SC is not hearing the case the ruling is to let it go forth. So it is up to the state to stop it, dismiss it.

 

no grounds, they did not stop the case against cigarette companies, they could go after anything now - except fast food, congress gave them an exception

 

Yes, I agree. But it should be noted the court did not rule on the substance of the case, only on its legal jurisdiction.

 

Actually some drunk drivers who were injured or killed driving their car have sued the auto manufacturer.

 

Yes, true, just as the title of the thread says. As I noted hope that the state court rules for the manufacturers.

 

If the defendants' lawyers do their homework, they will discover that the Sandy Hook narrative falls apart quickly. The rifle in question did not have the fingerprints of Adam Lanza on it.

Details, details. Discovery process can be a bitch.

 

@Bowerbird, I get the sense that you didn't intend to 'like' this post. Either that, or I have COMPLETELY misjudged your political stance!

 

Well destroying the gun industry IS what the left wants. I just don't understand why a supposedly conservative majority Supreme Court is helping to achieve that goal.

 

Sandy Hook was a false flag acted out specifically for lawsuits to go after our guns.

Don't believe a word the media tells you about Sandy Hook.

Disgusting leftwing garbage.

 

Yes, but we do need cars. We do not need public access to AR-15s.

 

Would you explain why you believe that?

 

Oi.....this is what I said.

Do you see the relevance of the comparison?

 

No, as I feel as a member of the public that I need access to AR 15s as much as I need a car.

My question to you was why. Why do you feel the public does not need access to AR 15s?

 

I don't need or want an AR-15. Why do you?

 

So just because you don't want or need one you think no one else should have access to them?

I want, need, and have more than one.

I want an AR for many reasons. I learned to shoot and carried the military version while in the Army. I came to respect its accuracy and enjoyed shooting it at the rifle range. They are light weight and easily adapted to different sight configurations and optics. These things make it a great all-round gun. With the civilian version, the AR, there is the fun of competing in organized shooting events. Three Gun is great fun. And, I have set up one for deer hunting.

I need an AR for protection against crime and tyranny. I keep one loaded in the corner of my bedroom right next to the bed.

The fact that it is light weight with an adjustable stock means it is easy for my wife to operate also.

I would have no good reason for you to own an AR if you don't want one. You should have no good reason for me not to own one.

 

Except I do. (I don't believe that you need one either other than to satisfy fake macho home security requirements.)

My reason is this....while you may be a responsible gun owner (and I have my doubts given your stated armoury) dick-head kids are not. That is self-evident. Are you a Member of the NRA?

 

I would like to apologize if I have offended you. Not sure why you feel a need to suggest that I have some "fake macho... requirement" or that you have doubts that I am a responsible gun owner.

I started shooting at five. Got my first rifle at 12. In my teens my friends and I would take our guns and go hunting and hiking. We grew up, went to college, served in the military, raised families, held jobs, paid taxes. None of my friend or I have ever committed a serious crime or shot anyone!

While the type of kids you mention may not be responsible enough for guns it does not mean all kids are not responsible.

I am pro choice. That does not mean I think every pregnant woman should have an abortion; just the ones who choose to.
I am pro same-sex marriage. That does not mean that I think everyone should marry someone of the same sex; just the ones who want to.
I am an atheist. That doesn't mean I think people should not believe in god; just the ones who choose not to.
I am pro gun. That doesn't mean I think everyone in the country should own a gun; just the ones who want to.

I don't want to infringe on your rights. Why do you want to infringe on mine.

Again I apologize if I some how offended you.

 

For once I agree with you. The law is clear, the Conn SC have to be Leftist activists to decide that Remington

How in hell did Remington violate any law here? Good God, the shooter killed his mother to get the gun. Remington doesn't sell directly to the public anyway.

 

Trucks are not designed to kill people.

 

Their flaw is that you don't know. Okay.

Fords aren't designed to kill people.

Guns are the only product sold that are made as dangerous as possible, by design.