|
|
|
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:
Family to Pay Price for Trying to Sue Ammo Dealers
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The family of 24-year-old Jessica Ghawi, a victim in the 2012 movie theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado, is faced with more than $200,000 in legal costs after a federal judge ordered them to pay attorney’s fees for four ammunition dealers the family attempted to sue.
“They have taken our daughter, and now they want to take our worldly goods,” Lonnie Phillips told MSNBC’s Tamron Hall in a televised interview earlier this week. “I think that’s a little much.” |
| Comment by:
mickey
(7/31/2015)
|
“They have taken our daughter, and now they want to take our worldly goods,”
It's enough to make one glad these people's capacity to generate grandchildren has been diminished.
Ammunition dealers are responsible for Jessica's death in the same way gas stations are responsible for a guy driving his car through a playground full of children. In other words, not at all responsible. |
| Comment by:
jac
(7/31/2015)
|
Serves them right. The ammo dealers were not responsible for the death. This was nothing more than a political stunt. They had to know that they were costing uninvolved parties thousands of dollars in legal fees.
I'm sure their lawyer advised them of the possible consequences. If he didn't they should sue the lawyer for malpractice. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. — James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]. |
|
|
