Sandy Hook- It's the guns fault, it's always the guns fault.

I don't know who wants you or loved ones to not be safe.

When you are driving on the roads, I want you and your loved ones to wear seat belts, to not look at your cell phone, to be sober, to drive no faster than the speed limit, to pull over if the police want you to, to obey all the rules and regulations, to have a driver's license with a picture on it, to take a driver's test as required, and an eye test. I want you to have been properly trained to drive, to drive a car that is safe and properly maintained and follows all manner of safety and reason on the roads (no drag racers or whatever). And have all cars registered and accounted for. And to have the roads made safe as possible, and policed as much as possible so all people follow the rules, and anyone who doesn't loses their rights. And to have a culture that promotes safety and control above all else. Cars aren't worth you or your loved ones lives. Whatever it takes for you and your loved ones to be safe, and more, that's what I want.

Same for all weapons designed to kill.

 

Even if that were true, it's only able bodied men under 45...

so everyone over 45, turn in your musket.

 

My opinion is as I said....

the founding father's were talking about an organized Militia.

 

-Where do you think originates, as a foundation, the desire to be able to defend oneself and loved ones?-

That wasn't the question... lets try this a different way.

What do you think makes people desire to be able to fight back against a well armed violent criminal attacker? Do you think its the Founders that instill the desire to be prepared?

 

So anyway, back to my original post. Should this lawsuit be allowed to go forward? Is there really a case against Remington?

If there is a case against Remington would my friend have a case against Ford? My friend's kid was permanently disabled when he was hit by a high school kid driving a Ford Escort. At the time of the accident the Escort (like the Remington rifle at Sandy Hook) was not being used as intended by the manufacture. The guy who hit my friend's kid was driving recklessly and showing off for his friends. We know it was not the high school kid's fault because he was just driving. We know it is really the fault of Ford Motor Company. Right?

 

as I already said, any politician who would try to enforce that would have a dead career immediately.

but hey, by all means, see if you can make it stick. I can't think of anything better for the pro-gun movement than for an anti to try to take guns from women, the elderly and the disabled. lol.

til then, we are all effectively the militia.

 

I understand what you said. I was asking what you think about the Unorganized Militia.

 

Your post here actually has zero connection with the article and the lawsuit. Instead, it amounts to stamping your little feet and pouting.

 

bullshit.

 

Uh, well the whole idea is antiquated.

 

Nature.

So anyway....

here's a paper on the long history of Gun Control In America...

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4825&context=lcp

 

Interesting observation. I guess if you can find enough people to agree with you then the Constitution can be changed.

 

Thanks for your opinion. At least you are addressing the OP and not the Second Amendment.

 

thx for the paper...

If 'nature' is the source for the desire for self defense, why would you expect Americans to change their value of firearms if it were discovered that the Founders didnt want us to have guns?

 

Yeah.

 

Well people will change their opinion about cars and safety when self driving cars change everything...

Change is what it's all about.

If there were ways to remain safe without the use of a gun, would you not choose that?

Aside from that, even if, as of now, people desire guns for defending themselves, why wouldn't they want it regulated as I outlined in how we all think about cars and safety?

If you read that paper, you will see that generally people have always taken guns and safety and control and regulations seriously.

It makes sense to do so in a civilized society.

 

Humans can shoot lasers through their fingers. Guns don't make people more deadly.

 

I may buy a car that drives itself should the technology become reliable in my lifetime, but I would never buy a car that I can't opt to drive myself, for the same reason I would never hand over my guns with the trust that the government is going to be able to keep me safe.

I will always be the most reliable source for my own safety.

If we were taking regulations and control and safety seriously, we would be following up with investigations into the tens of thousands of prohibited persons who are caught attempting and denied the purchase of a firearm each year. What we do instead is nothing. Its illegal to try to buy a gun if you are not legally allowed to own one, so we are not even enforcing the laws we already have. Is it unreasonable to expect that we enforce the laws we already have before trying to make more?

 

Where do you practice law?

 

It is a strange mind indeed that considers this to be "reasoned discussion". How often have we seen mass murders carried out with insane or evil intent by/with motor vehicles, medical professionals, tobacco, or toys?

This isn't an argument. It's insanity designed to derail any serious search for answers.

 

Right, and similarly, it was so, so WRONG to prosecute and punish Timothy McVeigh for something the ammonium nitrate did!!

 

So if you're obese it's the spoon's fault?

 

Guns are regulated.

 

You don't need a law degree to understand common sense....well most people don't. You might.

But unless there was some sort of negligence on the part of the gun manufacture that CAUSED a death, they can't be held liable. What the OP suggests would be no different than holding a care company liable for some choosing to run someone over. That is what the OP suggests, that the makers of a product be held liable for someone choosing to misuse their product in a criminal way. But like many on the left, he only applies this to guns. He doesn't want to hold other manufactures liable in the same way.

 

Lefties, dumbocrats and RINO's go after guns because it's easy. What they need to do is take a cold hard look in the mirror to see what society has become because it's not the guns that has changed, it's us.

The ease of availability of guns is a crock of ecoli. Look at the GCA of 1968 to see how gun availability fundamentally changed and try to keep your uneducated jaw from hitting the table.

I love it when liberals call conservatives stupid, then they start talking about guns. The irony is thick, just not as thick as their skulls.