|
|
|
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 |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
