Good news.

Planes are flown into buildings by previously law abiding people. Trucks are used to kill by previously law abiding people. A gun is no different. It's purpose depends on the holder.

 

The gun Adam Lanza used in the killings was purchased by his mother and kept in the home where he had access to it. Adam Lanza had a lot of mental issues and his parents and doctors and teachers knew it.
But..... somehow it is Remington's fault.

The link to CT.gov is a 114 page report on Adam Lanza. It refers to him having mental problems as far back as three years old. This guy was just a problem waiting to happen and his parents and his doctors allowed it to happen.

Remington did not do this!

 

Should we confiscate all automobiles because a few people drive them dangerously?

Maybe automobiles should be manufactured so can't exceed 25 MPH.

Maybe we should restrict how many people can ride in them so if there is an accident fewer people have a chance of dying.

I would agree with your earlier comment that delusional people should not be allowed to carry guns. People like Adam Lanza. His mother should not have allowed him access to the guns she purchased as she knew he had serious mental issues.

 

What? Hold PEOPLE accountable for their actions? What planet are you from?
This has GOT to be the fault of

• The NRA
• REMINGTON
• GUN OWNERS
• REPUBLICANS
• TRUMP

The order may not be correct, but the intent of these gun control guru's are.

There IS NO OTHER solution except to ban constitutional rights. None.

 

that’s why we have the second amendment, so people who “think they know better” cannot take our rights away just because you don’t like it. If there wasn’t a threat from people like you, they wouldn’t have bothered to put it on paper.

 

Good news huh? The law is clear, how could the court allow this suit to go through? You are celebrating because it's about a device you'd like to see banned. What you don't take into consideration is the unintended consequences. After seeing this, maybe pro lifers will start suing the makers of abortion devices. Maybe people will sue the makers of puberty blockers that are being used to destroy the lives of young children. This is just another example of the totalitarianism of the Left. When they can't accept the results of the democratic process, they resort to the courts to bankrupt their targets into submission.

 

Unfortunately, the constitution applies to Democrats too so they can't be banned from carrying guns as a group anyway. But since https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_Is_a_Mental_Disorder maybe we can go that route to keep guns out of the hands of the delusional TDS people.

 

How so?

 

Then go about proving such to be the case. Demonstrate conclusively, beyond reasonable doubt, that the AR-15 was designed and marketed exclusively for killing a large numbers of people in a short amount of time, and that the manufacturers have admitted to such. Show where they have admitted and advertised to such, that they are putting out the finest dedicated killing tools available for the general public.

 

The number of those killed through the use of handguns would suggest it is not a serious problem in need of address.

Do laws against rape require males to have their genitals amputated in an effort to prevent rape from being committed?

If not, there is no comparison to be made between the two standards.

 

Then why was the Virginia Tech killer, who was armed with only two handguns, able to kill so many more victims than the Sandy Hook killer, who was armed with only one rifle?

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-26402367

Twenty nine deaths and one hundred and thirty injured in a single mass stabbing attack in the nation of China. No rifles necessary.

 

So ultimately what is proposed on the part of yourself to force individuals to cease committing criminal acts?

 

Ridiculous stretches in logic noted. I guess those are the lengths on must go to to defend such an argument.

 

The "bolded" part is not mine. It's a quote from the manufacturer taken from the court case documents. I have no idea if the manufacturer is aware of what you point out. It makes absolutely no difference to me. To me, "popularity" is much less important than saving lives.

 

Mass murderers don't just wake up one morning and decide to kill a bunch of people. It is something that they spend a lot of time fantasying about and planning for. During that time, the gun, its reputed lethaliness, sits heavily in his thoughts where it festers.

If one listens to enough gun enthusiasts, one hears a lot of comments about keeping themselves safe. So obviously, even to the defenders of guns, the lethality of guns, is a clear known characteristic of guns. Criminals love guns because they give them power that they otherwise do not have. Gangs like them, because most of them are dumb butt weak cowards. Bullets provide the muscle and the stature they lack.

I suppose, that if we were to eliminate all firearms, and we reverted back to swords, axes, and arrows, that there would be less mass killings, as it takes a little more manliness to charge in with swords and axes. But then the land of Northern Europe is littered with the bones of those who died in massive battles between peoples wielding swords and axes.

 

Bzzzzz Fail! No I didn't. Try again

In any case, and to save you time, that's absolutely irrelevant to anything I have said.

 

Firecrackers were very popular before cities and states began banning them. Public safety came out on top over personal entertainment.

 

Oh, but you did...

 

You just contradicted yourself. If your guns were not designed to kill, what use would they have in your defending yourself. It is not like guns have stun settings.

 

If you want to outlaw the sale of automobiles... go ahead and make your arguments. My position is that we should outlaw the sale of assault weapons (now referred to with the PC term "military-style weapons"... lest the weapons feel insulted)

I would much rather rely on effective legislation, than on the judgement of the mother of a crazy person to keep guns away from the hands of people with mental issues.

 

What good is banning "assault" weapons when many other types of weapons will still be available and can be just as lethal (see Virginia Tech massacre as example).

 

The second Amendment does not supersede the rest of the Constitution.

 

Or having sex "doggy style" does not make one a dog.

Hey. I had to say it. It is precisely the same type of reasoning being used regarding these firearms.

 

Your struggle to phrase that paragraph shows. I mean ... "exclusively"? ... gimme a break!

Anyway... why would I need to prove that? Hint: I don't.