"Sandy Hook Parents Call Out Bernie Sanders for Gunmaker Liability Comments"

[Oxnard_Montalvo]

This one's from Newsweek, hopefully y'all can read this w/o the 'you have reached your limit of 5 views' garbage.

http://www.newsweek.com/sandy-hook-parents-bernie-sanders-gunmaker-liability-438738?piano_d=1

[baekacaek]

What a waste of money and people's time. How is this even a lawsuit?

[BAJ475]

While I am sorry for their loss, if they end up with the same result as the Lucky Gunner case, they will have deserved it!

[baekacaek]

While I am sorry for their loss, if they end up with the same result as the Lucky Gunner case, they will have deserved it!

What was the Lucky Gunner case?

[mit31]

I read the whole article earlier today.

The whole thing is just full of real or feigned ignorance of both firearms and advertising. They are claiming that because it is a "sooper scary army death gun," and because its advertising makes mention to military dependability, etc, even though it is legal to sell, the company is somehow liable for its misuse because it should not be selling them to the public, because this "type" of rifle "has no use except death."

It all comes back to the fact that they continue to claim that an AR (military!) is somehow more powerful than say, a mini 14 (civilian!), which is basically identical (in performance). Towards the end they talk about an AR penetrating body armor and its high muzzle velocity... never mind they are describing every rifle made since 1898.

Nor that nearly every weapon ever made in the US was designed for the military (many were not accepted for military service but that is still who they were made for), as they are the countries largest gun consumer. They also just assume that military applications require "more" dangerous weapons, as opposed to their real design reasons, which were light weight and ease of use in the case of the AR.

Nor do they touch upon the fact that because military items are by nature ruggedized, nearly ALL commercial products with a parallel military cousin will attempt to compare the two to claim that "premium" level of quality. By their logic, we shouldn't be allowed to have Humvees, night vision, or MRE's because they are dangerous military grade equipment.

There are several heartstring tugs in the letter, paraphrasing: ".... the last thing little Timmy saw was the muzzle of an AR pumping out bullets at 4000 feet per second...." So I guess they would be ok if the last thing little Timmy saw was the muzzle of a pump shotgun shooting 00 buck, or the muzzle of a pistol? He'd still be just as dead. No one seems to address the fact that in the situation that existed ANY firearm would have brought about the same result. Perhaps even more.

The answer is of course that the people pulling the strings behind these poor sucker parents hate all semi-autos and as usual are trying to see if they can bankrupt gun makers. The parents themselves, probably believe it and have no basic understanding of rifles or firearms in general.

This one's from Newsweek, hopefully y'all can read this w/o the 'you have reached your limit of 5 views' garbage.

http://www.newsweek.com/sandy-hook-parents-bernie-sanders-gunmaker-liability-438738?piano_d=1

[BAJ475]

What was the Lucky Gunner case?

http://www.guns.com/2015/04/23/aurora-theater-victims-family-may-owe-280000-in-lucky-gunner-lawsuit/

[Oxnard_Montalvo]

I read the whole article earlier today.

The whole thing is just full of real or feigned ignorance of both firearms and advertising. They are claiming that because it is a "sooper scary army death gun," and because its advertising makes mention to military dependability, etc, even though it is legal to sell, the company is somehow liable for its misuse because it should not be selling them to the public, because this "type" of rifle "has no use except death."

It all comes back to the fact that they continue to claim that an AR (military!) is somehow more powerful than say, a mini 14 (civilian!), which is basically identical (in performance). Towards the end they talk about an AR penetrating body armor and its high muzzle velocity... never mind they are describing every rifle made since 1898.

Nor that nearly every weapon ever made in the US was designed for the military (many were not accepted for military service but that is still who they were made for), as they are the countries largest gun consumer. They also just assume that military applications require "more" dangerous weapons, as opposed to their real design reasons, which were light weight and ease of use in the case of the AR.

Nor do they touch upon the fact that because military items are by nature ruggedized, nearly ALL commercial products with a parallel military cousin will attempt to compare the two to claim that "premium" level of quality. By their logic, we shouldn't be allowed to have Humvees, night vision, or MRE's because they are dangerous military grade equipment.

There are several heartstring tugs in the letter, paraphrasing: ".... the last thing little Timmy saw was the muzzle of an AR pumping out bullets at 4000 feet per second...." So I guess they would be ok if the last thing little Timmy saw was the muzzle of a pump shotgun shooting 00 buck, or the muzzle of a pistol? He'd still be just as dead. No one seems to address the fact that in the situation that existed ANY firearm would have brought about the same result. Perhaps even more.

The answer is of course that the people pulling the strings behind these poor sucker parents hate all semi-autos and as usual are trying to see if they can bankrupt gun makers. The parents themselves, probably believe it and have no basic understanding of rifles or firearms in general.

"By their logic, we shouldn't be allowed to have Humvees, night vision, or MRE's because they are dangerous military grade equipment."

...or the whole 1911 series of pistols, created to fill a specific need (to be more lethal than the .38 special) therefore is FAR too dangerous to be in the hands of untrained civilians.

[mit31]

"By their logic, we shouldn't be allowed to have Humvees, night vision, or MRE's because they are dangerous military grade equipment."

...or the whole 1911 series of pistols, created to fill a specific need (to be more lethal than the .38 special) therefore is FAR too dangerous to be in the hands of untrained civilians.

Its a lot easier to list guns NOT designed for marketing to the military than the other way around. The real answer is they want all semis gone but are going for low hanging fruit. As we all know, California has already stopped trying to pretend they only care about scary AR's.

[Ripon83]

hilda makes that a staple of her anti gun stance; sue the gun makers the way her lawyer buddies sued the tobacco companies.....she'll gets lots of lawyer donations for making the claim too.

[Paulie Lugnuts]

How hard is it to understand killers are responsible for killing, whether is with a gun a knife or a baseball bat.

[mit31]

How hard is it to understand killers are responsible for killing, whether is with a gun a knife or a baseball bat.

They are arguing that the AR is a military war weapon boom gun and is MORE lethal than other guns and allows people to kill more people with it than other guns. They don't really get that "that's not how any of this works."

[Tasty]

They don't really get that "that's not how any of this works."

Not only do they not get it, they don't want to. They have their minds made up from listening to all of the liberal talking heads that are toying with their emotions and telling them "guns are bad, guns are the problem" and they just try to pick up that torch and carry it as far as they can.

[Jimi Jah]

They will never understand that it's the indian, not the arrow.

[L84CABO]

I'm still amazed that PLCAA passed back in 2005. It's great of course. But Can you imagine how crazy things would be if it hadn't?

[ceedubG]

Apart from the ridiculousness (legally) of their arguments, just imagine how this case would set a precedent for a million other lawsuits. From cars, to toasters, if this case were successful every manufacturer of EVERY single thing would be liable potentially for the criminal acts of third parties.

It's absurd and I love how HRC uses little sound bites to make is sound like gun manufactures are getting away with murder and how could YOU not support holding them liable for the murders of sweet children et al.

It's disappointing how transparent politicians are when you hear them talk about gun control. They know noting about the weapons, they don't take the time to understand the law, and then they pander to an equally unknowledgeable scared public, making the public even more scared.

-Cee