I agree.I had my life savings stolen 6 years ago.It took 5 1/2 years to get a trial and lost because the big money left the game so I got a half ass effort from my attorney.By distorting the truth opposing counsel was able to convince a jury the crooks should keep the oil wells they claim is mine, the money from the oil it produces and my investment money.I now have to appeal myself because I'm broke with little chance of winning.Six months ago I was fired off a job for breaking my 36 year old step sons nose for bringing his drug problem to my job site.Just so happened I built 5 baseball diamonds for them and they owe me 165k,now saying they don't owe me anything.Now I have to find the money to sue!The innocent loss of life is a hideous tragedy.I am saying the wrong people are getting SHOT!!! How is that for an agreement.T 700 said:
I saw that coming..
- Thread starter TheOtherZilla
- Start date
CatShooter
It is a dumb suit - back in 2006, a federal law was passed that protected gun makers, distributers, andsellers (if they complied with the law) from law siuts.
The mother had taken all the safety courses, and the dealer was in compliance - so the suits will go nowhere.
There is an old and famous saying in legal circles...
"You can sue a ham-sandwich!"
This will go nowhere.
The mother had taken all the safety courses, and the dealer was in compliance - so the suits will go nowhere.
There is an old and famous saying in legal circles...
"You can sue a ham-sandwich!"
This will go nowhere.
TheOtherZilla
Pull my finger
What I see is a bunch of lawyers lookin for a payday
CatShooter
NickB1075 said:
Not at all the same thing.
At the time the gun was sold, the mother had a CCW permit, she met all the background checks, and everything was legal.
The sale was legal and approved by the state police at the time of transfer (so why aren't they included in the law suit).
The families are hoping for an out of court settlement - the defendants are crazy if they comply.
There are no rational points on the plaintiff's side.
1 - These semi-automatic rifles have been sold (legally) to the public for over 50 years. There are more of these rifles sold, then all other rifles combines - the civilian population own more of these semi-automatic variants, than the military and police own full auto models.
2 - On a number of AR-15's available vs crimes committed basis, these rifles are at the bottom of the scale.
3 - During riots (aka civil disorders) like the Watts Riots, the store owners that stood their ground with AR-15 variants, were the ONLY people to keep their stores from being burned to the ground. Everyone else lost everything.
You can't seriously be arguing against the merits of the case or attempting to reasonably and logically counter the perspective.
Even If this never makes it to court the twits who filed it will get payed, there LEFT over legal fund alone will see to that.
This is not about accountability or justice obviously. It's about repeating the phrases "assault weapons", "not suitable for sporting", "no justified reason for civilian ownership","Military firepower" , "made to hurt other humans" on the air...............it's not about the truth or facts of any kind.
it's advertising and for that purpose it is already working.
It's about the repetitious message that guns are inherently evil, they are already repeating these phrases on every network as usual. It's about programming the next generation to believe that crap...........and it's working on allot of the weak minded.
Even If this never makes it to court the twits who filed it will get payed, there LEFT over legal fund alone will see to that.
This is not about accountability or justice obviously. It's about repeating the phrases "assault weapons", "not suitable for sporting", "no justified reason for civilian ownership","Military firepower" , "made to hurt other humans" on the air...............it's not about the truth or facts of any kind.
it's advertising and for that purpose it is already working.
It's about the repetitious message that guns are inherently evil, they are already repeating these phrases on every network as usual. It's about programming the next generation to believe that crap...........and it's working on allot of the weak minded.
michaelnel
Old and In The Way
d.id said:
Although I am against banning them, assault weapons are everything you said above, and I don't see any reasons for civilians to own them either. If I had a reason, I'd own one. I used to own an H&K HK91 (7.62 NATO assault rifle), but no longer do.
michaelnel
Old and In The Way
Henryp said:
Actually, these days they mostly use M4s, not M16s.
THAT"S THE POINT!.................These phrases are all inaccurate. Not based in fact. All based on a false premise.michaelnel said:
Yet if repeated frequently enough over a long enough duration: folks get tired of arguing that obvious fact.
They except the language and the next generation excepts it because it is the common referenced term.
Then they can argue against the "military firepower" or "assault weapon" instead of the obviously silly argument against the AR or number of shells a given weapon could hold between reloads.
CatShooter,
I am aware of the particulars of this case. I was off duty the day of the incident but did patrol the area in the following days. I have spoken with multiple officers that were there that day and this has been something I have followed.
My comment was simply a statement to illustrate that people have and will continue sue over everything they can. This is common place in society and something I have been forced deal with my entire career.
I recognize and agree with you. I don't feel this suit will go to far.
Respectfully
Nick
I am aware of the particulars of this case. I was off duty the day of the incident but did patrol the area in the following days. I have spoken with multiple officers that were there that day and this has been something I have followed.
My comment was simply a statement to illustrate that people have and will continue sue over everything they can. This is common place in society and something I have been forced deal with my entire career.
I recognize and agree with you. I don't feel this suit will go to far.
Respectfully
Nick
I don't care what people in there right mind own, its the crazies we have to worry about. But watch it everytime you go to the Doctors that if He or She are for gun rights answer all the questions they ask correctly or someone maybe knocking on your door. It simply amazes my that our Constitution means nothing to our elected officials. And the second Amendment is the only one of the amendments that say Shall Not Be Infringed? There should be only one law on the books for anyone committing a crime with a gun. And that doesn't mean protecting yourself like some will think is a crime. But hold ups and things like that. LIFE IN PRISON!
Joe Salt
Joe Salt
Similar threads
Upgrades & Donations
This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.