Guns were made to kill! The Supreme Court Cleared the Way to Hold manufacturers Accountable
Today is a good day! It's time the manufacturers of the instruments of death give an account for the children who died in Newtown, Conn. Read all about it. CM
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court refused Tuesday to shield a major arms manufacturer from potential liability in the 2012 school shooting that left 26 students and educators dead in Newtown, Conn.
The justices' action allows a lawsuit filed by parents of Sandy Hook Elementary School victims to move forward at the state level, on the allegation that Remington Arms Co. marketed the military-style rifle used in the mass shooting "for use in assaults against human beings."
The case tests the reach of a 2005 law passed by Congress to protect firearms manufacturers from being held liable for crimes committed by gun purchasers. That law was hailed by the National Rifle Association, but it included exceptions, including one for violating rules related to marketing and advertising.
Gun control advocates have said a victory by the families in the long-running dispute could lead to more lawsuits and damaging disclosures involving the firearms industry.
Josh Koskoff, an attorney representing the families, said the lawsuit now can proceed to "shed light on Remington’s profit-driven strategy to expand the AR-15 market and court high-risk users at the expense of Americans’ safety."
Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., the state's former attorney general, tweeted: "Newtown families will now have their day in court – access to basic justice – against companies that wrongly sold & promoted assault weapons."
The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled 4-3 in March that Remington can be sued because of the way the AR-15-style Bushmaster rifle was marketed. The families' lawsuit contends that Remington glorified the gun in advertising aimed at young people, including in violent video games.
The Sandy Hook killer, Adam Lanza, was 20 when he shot and killed his mother at home, then went to the Newtown school and gunned down first-graders and educators. Lanza then killed himself.
The Supreme Court already has a gun rights case on its docket. That case, to be heard in early December, will decide whether a New York City regulation that restricts the transportation of legally owned guns violates their owners' constitutional rights.
Let's pray the families prevail. CM
Comments
-
Let's also file suit against Louisville Slugger for every person who has ever been beaten with a bat. This lawsuit is nonsense and a mockery of law. The families should be ashamed.
-
"Sour grapes"? It's unfortunate, the U S Supreme Court hasn't approved family members beaten by a "Louisville Slugger" to sue anyone.
Besides, Mr. Reformed, "Louisville Slugger" bats maybe used to beat a man to death, but it was not made, unlike a gun, made to kill. In case you have forgotten, a bat was made and designed to hit a baseball. However, it can be used for other things. Guns were made to kill! It's some times used for target practice, many times to help the user or the owner to kill (its basic design). I will add, guns are collected many times, but guns were made to kill. The Christians should remove all guns from their homes and churches.
Reformed, I thought you were pro-life? Are you a part of law-enforcement? Get over your love-affair with guns, its ownership, support of the NRA, and encouraging the other Christians to disobey the Bible and Christ. Check yourself. CM
-
@reformed posted:
Let's also file suit against Louisville Slugger for every person who has ever been beaten with a bat. This lawsuit is nonsense and a mockery of law. The families should be ashamed.
I'm sure the families WILL be ashamed of themselves... just as soon as they get over losing their kids in the Newtown school slaughter seven years ago. Fortunately, the thoughts and prayers of every gun-toting politician in the country have been with them throughout these unforeseen empty nest years, so I'm guessing the healing is progressing at a rapid pace. Why, within another seventy or eighty years most of those parents will be reunited with the children they lost in that aggravated ammo dump, which will render their lawsuit moot.
Bottom line: There's cause for hope, reformed!
-
It is shameful to suit the gun manufacturers. THEY ARE NOT THE KILLERS. We should allow people to suit knife makers, car manufacturers, beer makers, etc etc, Their argument is stupid.
I'm sorry for their loss, but at some point sound reason must prevail and the lawyers should have had enough sense to say this is not a suit you should file. IT IS SHAMEFUL. It's an INJUSTICE.
-
Reformed,
Calm yourself down! Accept the ruling of the American Supreme Court. Are you calling them "stupid" too (name calling again)? The collective decision is "SHAMEFUL... and INJUSTICE"?
Children are dead today because of what Remington did. Guns were made to kill! This can't be said for "knife makers, car manufacturers, beer makers, etc etc". You have to get over this gun addiction that consuming your life. You seem willing to throw your Christianity over board for the love of guns-- weapons of war.
You said:
"I'm sorry for their loss..."
Are you? When you know better, you do better. Use you voice and influence for background check, etc., on behalf of the families and NOT stand with gun owners and the NRA.
"... at some point sound reason must prevail..."
It has. Manufacturers are to account and common sense gun laws drafted, awaiting passage.
Where is your compassion for the families who loss loved ones? Why are you so willing to side with "mostly mentally-sick white men", with too much time and money on their hands (research proven), over the innocent children in a classroom? Get a grip, brother. Would you have the same position and attitude if your child were one of the children slaughtered in that classroom in Newtown, CT?
Reformed, side with the Creator who gives life, over the created, who manufactured instruments of death, taking life. The law of God (Ten-commandments) supersedes the laws of men, especially, the Second Amendment. Christian obeys the laws of the land as long as they don't conflict with the laws of God. Take your rightful place and condemn guns and your support for the NRA. CM
PS. All current users of CD stand with my reasoning, when it comes to guns. In number and in reasoning, would you reconsider your position? CM
-
@reformed posted:
I'm sorry for their loss, but at some point sound reason must prevail and the lawyers should have had enough sense to say this is not a suit you should file. IT IS SHAMEFUL. It's an INJUSTICE.
I'm encouraged by the apparent shift of the "shame" you discern in this matter from the families to their lawyers. I still disagree with your discernment, but at least I no longer find your shame blame to be disgusting.
-
Ok, first, what ruling do you think I am going against? All the SCOTUS did was say they could take a lawsuit in Court. They didn't decide a winner in said lawsuit.
Children are dead today because of what the SHOOTER did. Not Remington. I also love how you gloss over the argument about knives, beer, etc. Double standard.
We already have background checks. A background check would not have stopped Sandy Hook.
I am a gun owner. Should I not stand with myself?
How exactly is a manufacturer responsible for someone killing another person? Please spell that out specifically how they caused that person to pull a trigger and murder innocent children.
How am I siding with "Mostly mentally sick white men"? How am I doing that? This is a lie and you know it. You are lying and you know it and you should repent.
I don't care what other CD users say. What does that have to do with ANYTHING? Nothing. Not to mention what you said is a lie. Not all CD users agree with you.
The families should still be ashamed because what they are doing is not right. BUT the Lawyers are scumbags taking advantage of the situation for monetary gain.
-
Reformed said:
Ok, first, what ruling do you think I am going against? All the SCOTUS did was say they could take a lawsuit in Court. They didn't decide a winner in said lawsuit.
CM: The SCOTUS allowed the families to sue. Stop calling the Lawsuit: "SHAMEFUL", "INJUSTICE" and the families lawyers, "scumbags" taking advantage of the situation for monetary gain". Again, SCOTUS don't think so.
Reformed said: Children are dead today because of what the SHOOTER did. Not Remington. I also love how you gloss over the argument about knives, beer, etc. Double standard.
CM: Remington made, advertised, distributed, and sold the gun. Besides, your Supreme Court think they share some liability, by allowing the lawsuit to go through. Your above point holds no water, when it comes to guns. It's less than reasonable. Accept it, don't fight it. "That dog won't hunt". --Former President Bill Clinton
Reformed said: We already have background checks. A background check would not have stopped Sandy Hook.
CM: There is a need to have gun background checks that are meaningful and effective, without loopholes.
Reformed said: I am a gun owner. Should I not stand with myself?
CM: What? Don't do this to your family! Do you not trust God to protect you and your family? God is not enough? Where is your faith? "A house divided against itself can't stand". Separate yourself from the gun. Remove that gun from your home and renounce your support of the NRA. I can assure you 99.99% of the people of your church agrees with me.
Reformed said: How exactly is a manufacturer responsible for someone killing another person? Please spell that out specifically how they caused that person to pull a trigger and murder innocent children.
CM:
- See above.
- Besides, this is why the SCOTUS allowed the lawsuit to go through. I am not one of the family's lawyers. I can't show my hand to the opposition (gun manufacturers). Just wait and let the wheels of justice do its work. "The wheels of justice grinds slowly, but her work is effective".
Reformed said: How am I siding with "Mostly mentally sick white men"? How am I doing that? This is a lie and you know it. You are lying and you know it and you should repent.
CM:
- Do the research (internet).
- Bill, may be able to help you. If you ask him nicely, I am sure he will.
- Yes, angry "white men" with relationship problems, "mommy problems", and they fearing the "browning of America", do most of the mass shootings. Even your President, Trump, acknowledged the mental-illness problem. Then again, "how can the pot called the kettle black"?
Reformed said: I don't care what other CD users say. What does that have to do with ANYTHING? Nothing. Not to mention what you said is a lie. Not all CD users agree with you.
CM: Some CD Users may not want to go on the record, but they agree with the voice of reason and biblical understanding. Until you can prove otherwise, I am not lying and therefore, speaks the truth.
"Be not dismayed...God will take care of you". CM
-
Wow you really are stupid. SCOTUS only said the lawsuit could take place. That does NOT advocate for or against the manufacturers. Allowing the lawsuit does NOT mean Scotus thinks they share blame. Man you are an idiot and liberal hack.
-
@reformed posted:
Wow you really are stupid. SCOTUS only said the lawsuit could take place. That does NOT advocate for or against the manufacturers. Allowing the lawsuit does NOT mean Scotus thinks they share blame. Man you are an idiot and liberal hack.
It's the reformed trifecta! "Stupid," "idiot," and "liberal hack" in the SAME POST... and in the SAME WEEK as the planet Mercury's latest transit across the sun!
Mercury's next solar transit won't take place until 2032. I'm betting the next reformed trifecta will appear in these threads LONG before that.
-
Surely though you agree that I am correct that SCOTUS did not rule for or against the gun manufacturers as he tried to claim, nor did they offer an opinion on such things, nor does allowing a lawsuit signal that they agree that the manufacturer shares blame? You do believe that right?
-
@reformed posted:
Surely though you agree that I am correct that SCOTUS did not rule for or against the gun manufacturers as he tried to claim, nor did they offer an opinion on such things, nor does allowing a lawsuit signal that they agree that the manufacturer shares blame? You do believe that right?
From my review of several reports on the matter, the question before the Supreme Court was not whether Remington should be held liable, but whether the Newtown families have a legal right to sue Remington on the basis of the way it marketed the Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle, the firearm used in the Newtown massacre.
The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that an exception in the statute protecting firearm manufacturers from liability when their weapons are used to injure or kill applies in this case, an exception that has to do with how a weapon is marketed. The families argue that the Bushmaster XM15-E2S was marketed as a weapon of war, which therefore gave them standing to sue using that exception. Though the SCOTUS offered no comment with its ruling, I'm assuming that its ruling means that they agree with the Connecticut court's decision that the marketing exception applies in this case, that the families CAN sue on the basis of how the rifle was marketed.
FWIW - and again, the SCOTUS didn't offer any comment on this - one of Remington's ads for the Bushmaster XM15-E2S said "Consider your man card reissued." Another said "Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered.” That doesn't sound like marketing a firearm for hunting or home and family self-defense to me, but the Connecticut courts will now decide.
-
Reformed,
Thanks for affirming several of my key points in our most recent exchanges. Your practice-pattern in these forums, goes without saying or failure, when you increase name-calling the person has made salient points that you're unwilling or unable to counter.
If one thinks I am wrong, what have I done, Mr. Reformed, to cause you to unleashed your recent barrage of unkind names toward me? Are you unable to respond appropriately or you don't have anything meaningful in response? If this is not so, what have I said or done to cause you to wash your mouth on me, publicly with key-terms from your reservoir of name-calling? Is it the truth you can't handle or I said something that anger or something that embarrassed you? Please identify them and let's make it right.
Reverting back to your old staple, name-calling, in the past, you asked CD Users to forgive you for such internal bedevilment. The resurrection of your old habits are not welcome here in these forums. Please put forth greater efforts to express your disagreements with me and others. Your soul-weakness is not helpful or reflective of Christian discussion or attract new users to CD.
Your expressions of opposition should be reflective of what Christ and his disciples will do. Seek help, if necessary, to change the tone in these forums. Honor the Lord, your family, improve yourself, and standing in the eyes of many. "Any old mule can kick down a barn, but it takes discipline, cooperation, planning, and determination to build one". Let's work together. For you, it's going to be hard, but try. This calls for a new mindset. This is required as you relate to others and your view about guns. A re-education seems to be the way forward for you and all gun-loving Americans. I agree with Cheryl Russell who says:
Nothing changes people so much as an education. . . . Becoming educated makes life more complex because it turns black and white into shades of gray. Getting educated is like losing innocence— once lost, it is gone forever.
In order to do good, one must be good. Good is of God. Let Him into your heart anew. CM
SOURCE:
■ Cheryl Russell, 100 Predictions for the Baby Boom. (New York: Plenum Press, 1987), 40.
-
The 2nd is not about hunting or home self defense.
-
Or your absurdity was not worth the effort to counter. I can handle the truth but you don't speak truth. You have lied repeatedly today in multiple threads and I'm sick of it and calling out your crap.
-
@reformed said:
"Or your absurdity was not worth the effort to counter. I can handle the truth but you don't speak truth. You have lied repeatedly today in multiple threads and I'm sick of it and calling out your crap".
Mr. Reformed,
I am saddened you seem to be unable to control or express yourself to me, or others, in this public forum. Especially after gingerly, being reminded of CD's decorum.
It's obvious; you have much "displaced anger". I don't know if this is another moment of weakness or a deliberate way of relating? If it's the latter, this childish behavior is resented and unacceptable. If you are inclined to spur any more unkind written-bile toward me or any other, in these forums, may I suggest you do it in a PM? I think it's fair and reasonable to spare the limited users of CD and the unknown number of silent readers, the sourness of your inner soul.
I am sure you don't speak to your family or church members this way. Let us experience some of the better sides of you. Given that you seem to be wedded to guns, bullets, and the support of the NRA, you can still be civil. If this subject matter is too much for you to handle or brings out the worst in you, ask God to take this heaviness from you. Let's be kind to one another, moving forward. CM
-
Or you could just wake up and join reality.
-
Reality is:
18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
20 These are [the things] which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man (Matthew 15:17 - 15:20).
Once again, Mr. Reformed,
21 Let them not depart from thine eyes; keep them in the midst of thine heart.
22 For they [are] life unto those that find them, and health to all their flesh.
23 Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it [are] the issues of life.
24 Put away from thee a froward mouth, and perverse lips put far from thee (Prov. 4:21-24).
Jesus loves you. CM
-
Good thing I have not put forth evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, or blasphemy. Nor have I put forth anything perverse. You want to distract from the issues, that is your business, but I don't take back anything I have said in this thread.
-
What great contrast between you and what Jesus said, stood for and taught. I want to share a scripture with you:
8. "...But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. 9. Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; 10. And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him" (Col. 3:8-10-- KJV).
What do these verses mean to you? CM
-
If you are going to accuse me of being in violation of this verse you need to point out where I am in violation.
This verse is out of context.
-
Reformed said:
"If you are going to accuse me of being in violation of this verse you need to point out where I am in violation".
CM: Please re-read my post, if necessary. I made a contrast, discernible by anyone with a cursory knowledge of Jesus with you. What rules or laws you felt you have violated? You may have some internal shortcomings, provided you're willing to adhered to a standard, discernible by others.
Reformed said:"
"This verse is out of context".
CM: Again, please note the latter part of my statement which clearly said, "I want to share a scripture with you". Col. 3:8-10-- KJV was the passage. How could "this verse" be "out of context" when I asked you, "what do these verses mean to you"?
When does soliciting your opinion or understanding on a passage, becomes an accusation and "out of context"? Aren't you getting ahead of your skis, by seeking to manufacture an out of context scenario? Especially, since you haven't given any personal insights of the passage (Col. 3:8-10 (KJV), I wonder, who's making an accusation?
Allow me to remind you that a context is:
"a frame that surrounds the event and provides resources for its appropriate interpretation".
If you can justify the passage (Col. 3:8-10 (KJV), being "out of context", put it in context and by all means, tell me, what do these verses mean to you? CM
PS. Let's not forget the context of this thread: Guns were made to kill! CM
-
I'm done playing games with you. You can try and pass it off as innocent but anyone can see that it was a veiled attack against me.
Categories
In this Discussion
Who's Online 1
