|
|
|
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:
CT: Immunity for Gun Makers Impedes Needed Reforms
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
There is no conceivable hunting or self-defense need for a weapon that can discharge a 30-bullet magazine in a matter of seconds. Any other product so perfectly designed for deadly illegal results would be vulnerable to lawsuits. In fact, in 2004 Bushmaster contributed to a $2.5 million settlement after it was discovered the D.C. Beltway sniper had used an AR-15 in his attacks. But in 2005, Congress enacted to immunize gun makers from tort claims. The 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act prevents almost all civil suits against those who make or sell guns. |
| Comment by:
dasing
(2/5/2018)
|
| You don't NEED a reason to have any type of firearm, or accessory ! read the 2a!!! |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|
