|
|
|
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 |
| Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people. — Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697]. |
|
|
