|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Is Gun-Maker Liable for Newtown? Court Takes Up the Case
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Newtown school shooter Adam Lanza heard the message loud and clear when gun-maker Remington Arms marketed an AR-15-style rifle as an overpowering weapon favored by elite military forces, a lawyer for relatives of some victims of the massacre told the Connecticut Supreme Court on Tuesday. Lanza, who killed 20 first-graders and six educators with a Bushmaster XM15-E2S on Dec. 14, 2012, was obsessed with violent video games and idolized the Army Rangers, attorney Joshua Koskoff said. |
| Comment by:
jac
(11/15/2017)
|
We don't hold gun manufacturers liable for shooting deaths for the same reason we don't hold auto manufacturers and refiners of gasoline responsible when someone uses an automobile or truck to kill people.
I haven't seen any calls to sue Home Depot, GM or Exxon for the recent terrorist attack in NYC.
This is just another tactic of the anti gun crowd to put legitimate gun manufacturers out of business. |
| Comment by:
jac
(11/15/2017)
|
Any court that sides with the plaintiffs in this case needs to be investigated for extreme bias and failure to uphold the law.
I for one don't understand how the liberal court system decided that established law and the constitution no longer mattered. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| "Some people think that the Second Amendment is an outdated relic of an earlier time. Doubtless some also think that constitutional protections of other rights are outdated relics of earlier times. We The People own those rights regardless, unless and until We The People repeal them. For those who believe it to be outdated, the Second Amendment provides a good test of whether their allegiance is really to the Constitution of the United States, or only to their preferences in public policies and audiences. The Constitution is law, not vague aspirations, and we are obligated to protect, defend, and apply it. If the Second Amendment were truly an outdated relic, the Constitution provides a method for repeal. The Constitution does not furnish the federal courts with an eraser." --9th Circuit Court Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, dissenting opinion in which the court refused to rehear the case while citing deeply flawed anti-Second Amendment nonsense (Nordyke v. King; opinion filed April 5, 2004) |
|
|
