Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Parents of Sandy Hook victims planning lawsuit against gunmaker Bushmaster [View all]hack89
(39,171 posts)59. Gun manufacturers have the same rights as every other manufacturer
Try sueing Coors and Ford when a drunk driver kills your loved one.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
380 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Parents of Sandy Hook victims planning lawsuit against gunmaker Bushmaster [View all]
azurnoir
Dec 2014
OP
Perhaps they should do something beneficial rather than something futile
Freddie Stubbs
Dec 2014
#308
No more and less than "of course the firearm had no relevance... the shooter did it with his bare ha
LanternWaste
Dec 2014
#296
A poll on an anonymous, admittedly left-leaning, expressly Democratic internet forum,
branford
Dec 2014
#323
In a sane world they would have been sued and bankrupted a long time ago...
NoJusticeNoPeace
Dec 2014
#52
The gun was connecticut ban compliant. What negligence would you levy at them?
X_Digger
Dec 2014
#127
You would state a lie? The primary use of firearms is to collect dust in a gun cabinet..
X_Digger
Dec 2014
#132
Sandy Hook topics always brings out the NRA with their false analogies. Knives & pointy sticks have
TeamPooka
Dec 2014
#334
So the actual death toll is irrelevant? The only thing that matters is what it was designed to do?
hack89
Dec 2014
#343
I did not say that, but I like how you try to make a straw man argument. So pathetic. nt
TeamPooka
Dec 2014
#350
I merely pointed out knives have non-lethal uses. You have termed that "dismissing them as murder
TeamPooka
Dec 2014
#352
You gave knife manufacturers a pass in regards to the criminal use of their products
hack89
Dec 2014
#353
Why is it that the pro gun control crowd always, inevitably, fall back on the penis reference?
GGJohn
Dec 2014
#363
Oh how I wish there was an actual hell, there would be an entire wing for them
NoJusticeNoPeace
Dec 2014
#54
I understand their wanting to make a point, but they'll lose very early in the game. n/t
ColesCountyDem
Dec 2014
#12
I can assure you this law firm is not to be under estimated..they're well respected here in
Jefferson23
Dec 2014
#20
The firm has not stated how they're liable and it is completely up to the families
Jefferson23
Dec 2014
#27
Bet any way you like. The firm has not stated in what capacity Bushmaster is liable, yet.
Jefferson23
Dec 2014
#64
uh huh..because you're an attorney and know that wiki has convinced you..evidently, not
Jefferson23
Dec 2014
#117
You can't comprehend that you're uninformed due to the fact that the firm has not
Jefferson23
Dec 2014
#119
Like I said, and will repeat once more...they have not stated their reasoning for liability claims.
Jefferson23
Dec 2014
#133
Couldnt agree more...tell it and tell it loud and often, I say...Thank you, buddhagirl
NoJusticeNoPeace
Dec 2014
#56
Military-styled firearms are treated by way too many as elaborate, lethal toys.
Paladin
Dec 2014
#112
Do you support banning any type of gun that could used in a Sandy Hook type shooting?
hack89
Dec 2014
#180
Shaky, at best, given the absurd way our laws protect these manufacturers of death.
NoJusticeNoPeace
Dec 2014
#58
The bars are more like gun dealers - they have direct contact with the purchaser
hack89
Dec 2014
#76
If that was the case you would think there would be a huge spike in deaths due to rifles
hack89
Dec 2014
#88
Most people consider "spike" to mean "sharply increase" in this context
friendly_iconoclast
Dec 2014
#118
Handguns do concern me, but not your gun buddies. They keep adding to their collection and strappin
Hoyt
Dec 2014
#310
I don't own a gun. Your remote viewing abilities are on a par with your cosmology
friendly_iconoclast
Dec 2014
#116
You know what excites my baser instincts far more than any of my thirty-nine firearms?
sir pball
Dec 2014
#137
That's a gun. That does nothing for me. I said that, pretty clearly. Now, where's the bike?!
sir pball
Dec 2014
#149
Nah, it's just a collection. Most of them are nice and old fashioned, I just liked them.
sir pball
Dec 2014
#152
God, I remember when NHRA used to allow us to stand right there on the side of the track
GGJohn
Dec 2014
#154
There are actually specific laws and treaties that deal with airline liability
branford
Dec 2014
#286
A hint at where they may be going with this lawsuit, from Koskoff in 2013:
Jefferson23
Dec 2014
#135
Yea, I read your opinion and the other pro gun rights advocates in this thread.
Jefferson23
Dec 2014
#140
You're not, eh? Interesting take you have. Yes, I noticed how often you have mentioned
Jefferson23
Dec 2014
#143
How does that address the Op-Ed he wrote? What makes you think he is not aware of the law?
Jefferson23
Dec 2014
#144
Blood sucking lawyers and you support laws designed to protect the arms manufacturer.
Jefferson23
Dec 2014
#158
The automobile industry is not protected that way, that is absurd to even suggest.
Jefferson23
Dec 2014
#165
I think you're lost as to what the Op-Ed Koskoff wrote is suggesting...they are not going after the
Jefferson23
Dec 2014
#169
Again, Koskoff admits no such thing..that is the opinion of the blog host, who acknowledges
Jefferson23
Dec 2014
#173
You're certainly free to root for the Remington Outdoor Company..no law against that. n/t
Jefferson23
Dec 2014
#177
Blame the Brady family..how nice of you. You're part of the problem, not the Bradys.
Jefferson23
Dec 2014
#191
Wish they'd sue Alex Jones for instigating harassment of victims' families
Adenoid_Hynkel
Dec 2014
#138
You're forgetting that the DC Sniper killings took place in 2002, before the passage of
GGJohn
Dec 2014
#208
A USA gun control extremist is just a normal person in most of the civilized world
NoJusticeNoPeace
Dec 2014
#302
Rude LOL oh my god, the people who are against guns slaughtering people are the rude
NoJusticeNoPeace
Dec 2014
#311
Are you under the impression that being "against guns slaughtering people" makes one incapable...
beevul
Dec 2014
#321
snip* No other industry in the country benefits from such special legal protection.
Jefferson23
Dec 2014
#236
No industry should be afforded such protection under the law..they have gained
Jefferson23
Dec 2014
#239
Where did I say they were negligent? In regards to what..their lack of safety measures?
Jefferson23
Dec 2014
#241
You imagine they would allow themselves to be sued into oblivion? You can't be serious.
Jefferson23
Dec 2014
#250
I don't know that to be an accurate account of their end goal. Reagrdless, the gun lobby
Jefferson23
Dec 2014
#258
You can read, correct? So don't quote me and then get it wrong. Those are your words, not mine.
Jefferson23
Dec 2014
#249
You're not being asked to censor yourself..you are being asked to be accurate...not hard.n/t
Jefferson23
Dec 2014
#254
You're serious? ok..it means, I would appreciate you not misquoting me. n/t
Jefferson23
Dec 2014
#257
Do you guys freak out over every single mention that your control of the Congress
Jefferson23
Dec 2014
#260
The state of Connecticut, through their AWB, said the number of rounds fired was legal
hack89
Dec 2014
#294
With the challenges to the NY & CT gun controls having been heard by the 2nd Circuit of Appeals
Lurks Often
Dec 2014
#312
Case was filed in state court with non-diverse instate necessary party defendants
Gothmog
Dec 2014
#367
CT's Assault weapons standards has more to do with the design and features of the weapon,
GGJohn
Dec 2014
#325
If the area is a lawful gun range, I assume the open carry would be perfectly legal
branford
Dec 2014
#364
I do not believe that the lack of reference to the PLCAA is a defect in the complaint,
branford
Dec 2014
#328
If negligent entrustment cases are exempted from PLCAA then why would pleading mention this?
Gothmog
Dec 2014
#368