Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumThe Brady campaign sued Lucky Gunner, attempting to "put them out of business"..
The judge made this statement in his ruling:
"It is apparent that this case was filed to pursue the political purposes of the Brady Center and, given the failure to present any cognizable legal claim, bringing these defendants [Lucky Gunner] into the Colorado court... appears to be more of an opportunity to propagandize the public and stigmatize the defendants than to obtain a court order."
So they naturally lost, and not only did they lose, they lost big, and they are appealing the case to a higher court too loose some more.. Now the Lucky Gunner, is going to donate 100% percent of the "Brady" money back into gun rights advocacy groups, and they have a poll on their website allowing visitors to vote to whom should they donate the Brady Campaign's money too..
It amazes me how one side, can so turn it around, and use the other side's own money against them.
http://www.luckygunner.com/brady-v-lucky-gunner
Just reporting the facts, without emotional embellishments for all to see.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)And only because Coloarado passed a NRA inspired gun manufacturer civil suit protection law.
But, hey, do not let facts get in the way of the truth, that is how NRA-lovers ride....with a truckload of misinformation.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)Ammo is legal to buy and sell in this country. Lucky gunner is no more liable than a gas station that sells a 24 pack of beer and that guy ends up killing somebody in a DUI.
Maybe their legal team should have done a bit more research on the laws before they started throwing lawsuits around.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Shamash
(597 posts)How is Colorado's law protecting gun manufacturers different from their law protecting every other seller of an item that is misused? To refresh your memory, that non-NRA-inspired section of law would be:
"No product liability action shall be commenced or maintained against any seller of a product unless said seller is also the manufacturer of said product or the manufacturer of the part thereof giving rise to the product liability action."
To put it in better perspective as to how out of line the "NRA-inspired" law is compared to other Colorado liability laws:
"Except as provided in subsection (4) of this section...a llama activity sponsor, a llama professional, or any other person, which shall include a corporation or partnership, shall not be liable for an injury to or the death of a participant resulting from the inherent risks of of llama activities and, except as provided in subsection (4) of this section, no participant nor participant's representative shall make any claim against, maintain an action against, or recover from a llama activity sponsor, a llama professional, or any other person for injury, loss, damage, or death of the participant resulting from any of the inherent risks of llama activities."
As best I can tell, this statute also covers scary black llamas and even "assault llamas". No matter how many people run around yelling "Cuidado! Llamas!"
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)The final refuge of a gun-controller who has lost the argument.
Shamash
(597 posts)blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)Well played.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Unfortunately, their grief led them to take some really bad legal advice and file a frivolous lawsuit.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)challenged in the lawsuit, it will need the appellate court to be overturned so the lawsuit can proceed.
What are the merchants of death so afraid of that they can not defend themselves without intimidating folks in court as well?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)See SLAPP suit. Abortion providers needed the same protection from right wing abuse of our legal system.
DonP
(6,185 posts)Not much of a strategy, hoping that somehow, with no legal precedent, that it will be "magically" overturned just because, well its about "GUNZ" and everybody hates GUNZ, right?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)The plaintiffs never stood a chance. I'm not even sure how you can apply the term "gerrymandered" to the case.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Solution: create laws so there are not so many guns.
Report concluded.
Duh.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)of all, added to 32000 gun-related deaths per annum.....year after year.
In some court not in the US is what you are saying?
so.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)There are 330 million residents in America. Conclusion: That is a lot of guns and a lot of people. You have much more research to do.
Solution: create laws making murder illegal; report concluded.
Duh.
Shamash
(597 posts)Fred and Reality had a messy breakup a while back and have not been on speaking terms since. We had hopes that Reality would come back to him, but she doesn't like to hang out with the crowd he associates with. He's tried to find someone to fill the hole now that Reality is gone from his life, but has not had much luck. We've tried to tell Fred that shacking up with the Asshat twins (Ignorance and Certitude) may feel good, but is not going to end well. For one thing, they're also sleeping with all his friends and lord knows what he is going to catch from them. But, he won't listen and it seems he is just going to have to find out the hard way.
randys1
(16,286 posts)The very existence of a gun is an act of negligence if someone is harmed or killed as a result of the existence of that gun.
This FACT is WHY the gun mfgs need laws to protect them.
I mean you can sue successfully, as you should be able to, a ladder mfg for not putting a warning on the thing.
A good attorney would sue ALL gun mfgs out of existence if there werent SPECIAL laws protecting them.
And we would all be so much better off if they did.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)You would not be able to sue the manufacturer of a ladder if a burglar used it to break into your house. That's what this lawsuit was about. The criminal actions of a 3rd party using a legal party in the commission of a crime. Following your logic, any manufacturer of any legal product would be subject to a lawsuit if any 3rd party used their product to commit a crime. Ford, Craftsman, Exxon, whatever.
beevul
(12,194 posts)No Randy.
The fact that someone who holds views on guns as twisted, hateful, and disconnected from reality as those that you have expressed, could end up on a jury and spitefully vote that a manufacturer is responsible for the criminal misuse of a legally manufactured legally sold product, is WHY the gun mfgs need laws to protect them.
In short, YOUR extremist views on this issue are the problem.
Talk about alternate reality
The person on the side of reason, common sense, saving lives is the extremist
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)would not be arguing for holding the manufacturer of a legal product responsible for the criminal misuse of that product by third parties.
That person would be advocating holding the person(s) directly responsible for the criminal actions to account. YMMV.
beevul
(12,194 posts)You can claim to be on whatever side you want, buddy.
What you can't claim, is that the 3/4 of Americans who support the second amendment protecting an individual right are somehow a loud minority.
The loud minority viewpoint here, make no mistake about it, is yours.
You are an anti-gun extremist, even here on DU.
Shamash
(597 posts)Randys1,
Since the NRA was not founded until 1871 and we had all sorts of nifty repeating firearms by then, it would be impossible to blame a non-existent gun lobby during that period. So:
1) where were the "good attorneys" hiding from 1789 until 1871?
2) what were the SPECIAL laws protecting gun manufacturers back then?
3) without the NRA and with Republicans being the party of Abraham Lincoln, who would you blame for those SPECIAL laws?
In light of this...
Allergy warning: The comments of randys1 on the topic of gun control come from keyboards that have been in contact with nuts.
randys1
(16,286 posts)blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)Shamash
(597 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)within a well regulated militia (obviously we arent going to waste time arguing about that)
A future of an evolved human race either is a future with MORE guns or less or no guns.
I say less or no guns.
A future of evolved humans involves less or no religion , for instance.
Less or no guns, are a given.
Or there is either no future or one not worth living for.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)that clarified that the RKBA was not tied to militia service, but was in fact an individual right. See Heller v. District of Columbia and McDonald v. Chicago.
randys1
(16,286 posts)Look, this is simple, I will say it again
Your future is one where everybody and their uncle, aunt and child has a gun
My future nobody has one
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)Statements like that just make your position look silly. I know of no one on the pro-RKBA side that endorses everyone owning a firearm. Does your future include the police and military being disarmed?
If you know what the 2nd Amendment says then you know that it grants the RKBA to "the people" and not to "the militia" or "the state". That would mean it is an individual right, not a collective right, just as the 1st and 4th Amendments.
Shamash
(597 posts)Correct, because you live on Bizarro Earth, and I live on the one where our Constitutional law professor President and his party say that the 2nd is an individual right. On this Earth, that argument is over and has been over for quite a while.
In other matters, tell me:
Did banning alcohol stop alcohol use?
Did banning drugs stop drug use?
Did banning racism end hate crimes?
No? Then exactly how is a gun ban going to do better? People will stop using guns on each other when the people change the way they think and the way they view each other. Your ideas would be exactly as successful for guns as a ban on religion would be for getting rid of that.
No, it is simplistic. There is a difference. You have lots of assertions and no arguments. Stating "X is a fact" does not not make it a fact, no matter how much you want it to be one. Much like your statement about a "good attorney" putting all the gun makers out of business. Saying it and not being able to back it up makes you look bad, unless you think your non-stop dodging of the questions paints you in a positive light.
So, are you going to retract that statement, back it up with an argument, or continue to embarrass yourself by avoiding it?
randys1
(16,286 posts)If suing gun mfgs successfully would NOT be so easy by a good attorney, why do they need special laws preventing attorneys from suing them?
Why in the HELL do you think they need SPECIAL laws that apply ONLY to gun mfgs?
Just for the fun of it?
You should have thought this through before coming at me so hard.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/12/19/why-isnt-the-media-discussing-the-unprecedented/191910
Bush signing PLCAA, photo by Paul MorseIn 2005, former President George W. Bush signed into law the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - the "No. 1 legislative priority of the National Rifle Association" - which immunized gun makers and dealers from civil lawsuits for the crimes committed with the products they sell, a significant barrier to a comprehensive gun violence prevention strategy. Despite recent reporting on proposed efforts to prevent another tragedy like the one in Newtown, a Media Matters search of Nexis revealed major newspapers and evening television news have not explained this significant legal immunity.
Faced with an increasing number of successful lawsuits over reckless business practices that funneled guns into the hands of criminals, the 2005 immunity law was a victory for the NRA, which "lobbied lawmakers intensely" to shield gun makers and dealers from personal injury law. As described by Erwin Chemerinsky, a leading constitutional scholar and the Dean of the University of California-Irvine School of Law, by eliminating this route for victims to hold the gun industry accountable in court, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was a complete deviation from basic "principles of products liability":
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)The PLCAA codified into statute a long-standing legal principle that manufacturers of legal products are not responsible for the criminal actions of 3rd parties who use their legal products to commit crimes. You cannot successfully sue Craftsman if someone uses their ladder to burglarize your house. You cannot sue Ford if the impaired driver that totals your vehicle is driving a Taurus. You cannot sue Sports Authority if someone uses a baseball bat to break your arm.
Firearms manufacturers were faced with nuisance lawsuits filed solely to impose huge costs to defend themselves. These lawsuits were for damages caused by the criminal actions by 3rd parties using their legal products. Firearms manufacturers are still subject to the same product liability standards as others; if their firearm malfunctions and causes injury to the end user they can still be sued. (See Remington).
The aircraft industry was also faced with nuisance lawsuits on behalf of people injured or killed in plane crashes where defect could not be determined but were equally likely to have been the result of poor maintenance. They were given limited indemnity after a period of years after the manufacture of the aircraft.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)I KNOW i have seen it all now
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)To call this hypocrisy would be to understate the matter.
Shamash
(597 posts)If you want to understand why we have that law, you should look at the actual cases and comments by the judges on these cases as they were dismissed or otherwise thrown out of court. Quoting a third-hand opinion from a group you already agree with is not likely to teach you anything new. But at least you're good at it.
I'm not hostile, I'm just ashamed of you. People like you generate comments like "that's a liberal?" in the same way someone points at Westboro Baptist and says "that's a Christian?". I have to apologize on behalf of liberals and say "we're not all like that".
And you still did not answer the question of why a "good attorney" didn't already put the gun makers out of business a century before you were born. Just think of all the lives we would have saved if someone had thought to sue axe makers out of business after that nasty Lizzie Borden business. Or at least mandated some appropriate labels for them.
I guess "my interaction with you will end after this post" sounds nicer than "running away with your tail between your legs". You'll be back, if not here, then elsewhere. Anytime you want, I'll be more than happy to hold up a cheese grater and let you repeatedly pound your face against it before you claim victory and stagger away.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)Oh, that's right, I never did. More lies from the pro-control side. Business as usual.
randys1
(16,286 posts)i get lost sometimes dealing with gun folks and so i may have confused you for that person
Shamash
(597 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)Hey, PLCAA detractors: This is why the plcaa, the 'most reprehensible' piece of legislation blah blah blah' was necessary.
Defend it in the face of this, if you can.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)va mtn man: Just reporting the facts, without emotional embellishments for all to see.
You're reporting just the facts YOU want to be known, in other words pro gun propagunda.
The judge who ruled on this case is pro gun, ruled pro gun in another case, a republican, Nixon appointee, evidently grew rightwing as the years gone by:
Federal judge allows citizens to challenge post office gun ban.. It seems the Postal Service has precedent on its side, though Judge Richard Matsch wants to hear arguments. A couple in Colorado is challenging post offices' status as "sensitive places," stating that the gun ban on Postal Service property makes it impossible for them to retrieve their mail. The couple lives far from town and does not receive home delivery. Both are concealed-carry permit holders.
The Postal Service attempted to have the suit dismissed, as the Supreme Court has ruled that restricting the right to have firearms is not violated in "sensitive places." Judge Matsch's refusal for dismissal means that both sides of the case will prepare arguments to be heard at a later date. http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/movie-theater-shooting/parents-of-jessica-ghawi-involved-in-brady-center-lawsuit-against-online-ammunition-seller
Ghawi's parents, appeared with attorneys and representatives of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence to announce the lawsuit against Lucky Gunner and other businesses. Doing business as BulkAmmo. com, that business {lucky gunner} sold the shooting defendant 4,325 rounds for various weapons less than a month before the shooting, according to an ATF special agent's testimony http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/movie-theater-shooting/parents-of-jessica-ghawi-involved-in-brady-center-lawsuit-against-online-ammunition-seller
Ghawi's parents are not seeking monetary damages, but do want to spare other families from similar tragedies by getting a court to order the companies to follow "reasonable business practices." .. lawsuit accuses the four online suppliers of ammunition and military-grade equipment of failing to screen the gunman and making it too easy for him to buy ammunition, tear gas and body armor.
mtn man: ..and they are appealing the case to a higher court too loose some more
Hopefully the appeal won't be heard by a rightwing pro gun judge. Do you really think an appellate court will stick it to the plaintiffs as the rightwing kangaroo court-judge did?
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)to uphold the law as written and enforce the attorney's fees as required by law. Political affiliation should have no bearing on the application of the law as written.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Why are facts like Kryptonite to NRA defenders. By the way the legal costs were assessed against the two grieving parents of the Aurora massacre, not the Brady campaign, and is under appeal.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)then I, if i survive, or my heirs can sue the cars manufacturer for the damages?
I really don't know why i am asking this as the poster doesn't want to answer "difficult" questions.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)By "difficult" question I assume you mean incomprehensible?
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)of their products? That law? I would agree to removing it if you could get all manufacturing company's to accept the same liability.
Think you can do that?
randys1
(16,286 posts)You see questions like this are why you need to hire an attorney if you want to know what is what.
I wont explain further than that, time is money.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)home invader/stalker/rapist/etc.
Self defense is a basic human right.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)They sure are doing a fine job of it.
sarisataka
(18,895 posts)both parents are employees of the Brady Campaign?
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Engage in social engineering through the courts, and it bites you in the ass, it is on one's fault but yours.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)The PLCAA simply codifies into statutory law the exact same protection EVER OTHER manufacturer of a lawful product enjoys regarding criminal use of their products by third parties. No other manufacturer was subject to nuisance lawsuits designed to force them out of business. Not Ford, not Craftsman, not Budweiser. It's the gun-control proponents that are allergic to facts.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Crying tears for weapons factories? Your tears, I guess.
My tears are for the children and fellow citizens killed by their only for killing products.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,483 posts)...through local shops will raise them from the dead.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)aimed at holding them to a level of liability that no other manufacturer was subjected to. The sole purpose of the lawsuits was to force the manufacturers to spend time and money fighting back and to drive them out of business. I'm not crying; the law and court precedent are on my side. I see a lot of tears coming from the pro-control side over there ongoing impotence and irrelevancy.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)liabity for selling WMD's to civilians by the hundreds of millions. We all get it.
Tears for guns, vitriol for gun victims. Will never get that.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)"a special legal assault" by people attempting to hold the manufacturers to a liability imposed on no other manufacturer of a legal product. I'll take your "Full Ignore" as an admission that your argument lacks any merit or logic to support it so you have to run and hide.
beevul
(12,194 posts)'Double secret ignore' comes next, I've heard.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)Not "Double Secret Ignore!!!!" Whatever will I do?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)I'm curious; your unit was Air Defense. Did you focus on fixed wing, or all air assets?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Both fixed and rotary. Moved to Patriot, fixed, cruise and missiles. Now THAAD missile defense. Still supervise patriot instructors.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Did a year tour in Kuwait in a Patriot Battery. Told me he was bored to tears, all he got was ouchies and boo-boo's. Said that most of "injuries" were from practice reloads.
Called most of them "kids playing and falling".
Did a year on Afgan with the 10th Mountain before that.
Said it did get "exciting" at times.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Yep reloads can be dangerous. THAAD is much better in that respect. Hope he stays safe. Love the medics👍👍
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)I think a little of this old Marine rubbed off on him.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)too bad your son isn't bored more often.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)TeddyR
(2,493 posts)They were sued by folks bringing a frivolous claim, prevailed, and were rightly awarded attorney's fees. Federal district court is not the place to make a political statement.
randys1
(16,286 posts)TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Is similar or identical to the law across the country. The parents will lose on appeal as well. You don't get to sue a business for selling a legal product in a legal manner. You do understand that the official platform of the Democratic party (President Obama, candidate Clinton and Sanders, former President Clinton, etc.) is that the 2d Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, right? In other words, both Democrats and Republicans agree that Heller correctly interpreted the 2d Amendment.
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)You really should help the Brady campaign lawyers. Since you clearly know so much about the subject at hand.. They clearly don't know as much as you.
Response to virginia mountainman (Reply #6)
friendly_iconoclast This message was self-deleted by its author.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Which could explain many things...
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)particularly at trial court levels, not so much Supreme Court and less Federal Court at all levels, is another fact that will be denied by gun-lovers.
There wil be no debate, there will be the usual pleas to be accepted at DU as any other member.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)The judge applied the law as written. The law was written to codify into statute a long-standing legal principle that manufacturers of legal products are not responsible for the criminal misuse of those products by 3rd parties. Passage of the law was necessitated by ill-advised lawsuits against gun manufacturers attempting to hold them to a legal standard that did not apply to any other manufacturer of a legal product.
The lawsuit against Bushmaster was removed from Federal courts to CT courts in an attempt to circumvent the PLCAA; this case will be remanded back to the Federal Courts. They will apply the provisions of the PLCAA, dismiss the lawsuit, and order the plaintiffs to pay Bushmaster's legal bills.
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)Time to "stick it" to the Looser Brady Bunch!!
http://www.wbir.com/story/news/2015/07/21/action-against-lucky-gunner-over-online-ammo-sales-dropped/30495515/
From DonP's thread.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172172192
deathrind
(1,786 posts)Firearms control is never going to happen. If none of the massacres in just the last five years (esp Sandyhook) can't bring it about nothing will.
The 2nd amendment says nothing about ammo that is where the focus should be.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)Yet court cases have established clear precedent regarding attempts to engage a back-door prohibition by excessive regulations and/or taxes that result in inhibiting exercise of a constitutional right. The same would apply to any attempt to prohibit or excessively tax ammunition.
deathrind
(1,786 posts)blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)Both are necessary to exercise the right. One cannot print a newspaper without printer's ink; one cannot fire a gun without ammunition. Both are equally protected as being necessary to exercise the right. Both cannot be capriciously infringed upon. The case law on this, like the case law supporting the PLCAA is quite clear.
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)Besides the very correct thing "blue ridge" is telling you about. That many people reload ammunition as a hobby..I do...
Go ahead, create a nice and extremely profitable black market for us.....Heck, do you want to know how to make it? I can teach you in 20 minutes, how to make workable ammunition from things you find in a typical country store...
Heck I may even post how to do it HERE for all to see....
So, keep the focus on things you know nothing about.....
deathrind
(1,786 posts)Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)Frankly, it would be such an easy case that a first year law student might be overqualified.
I could also quote McDonald vs Chicago.
"it logically follows that the right to keep and bear arms extends to the possession of handgun ammunition in the home; for if such possession could be banned (and not simply regulated), that would make it impossible for citizens to use [their handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.
deathrind
(1,786 posts)My post said nothing about restricting ammo in any form. Please go ahead and send your student...
Shamash
(597 posts)So, if your post is not about "restricting ammo in any form", what exactly is your focus on ammo about?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)That would be cool!
tularetom
(23,664 posts)I feel bad for all the families who lost loved ones in this incident, but the Brady people took advantage of their grief and finagled them into filing a frivolous unwinnable lawsuit based on a ridiculous premise.
I hope these parents were shrewd enough to secure a commitment from the Brady group to foot the bill in the event this case went down the shitter.
Whatever. Justice was done and I'm happy with the outcome.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)But it will not change as much as you want it to. It will just cost them even more money to get the same result.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)You're not kidding, VM! That's the RKBA jiu-jitsu at work!
Meanwhile, The Brady Bunch continues to self-destruct!
stone space
(6,498 posts)...they kick families of gun victims in the face?
That's a level of hatred for gun victims that I'm surprised to see on a Democratic site.
I just don't understand the hate.
And how the hate becomes so extreme.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Brady campaign. They are the ones who manipulated the family into filing a frivolous lawsuit. They are the ones you should be mad at.
stone space
(6,498 posts)Families of gun victims being attacked by the arms industry is what is being cheered on here.
And such hate has no place on a Democratic board.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)It's about the rule of law, plain and simple. The law provided for awarding attorney's fees to the defendants in these types of suits as the vendor is not responsible for the criminal actions of 3rd parties who are using their legal products during the commission of a crime.
As the judge noted, the Brady Org had to know the provisions of the law yet chose to file the lawsuit anyway. The award is clearly justified.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)but I have a pretty low opinion of people who would take advantage of a family's grief in order to get them to file a baseless lawsuit to further their own prejudices.
Why not sue the manufacturer of the automobile that Mr Holmes drove to the theater in order to perpetrate his murderous rampage?
stone space
(6,498 posts)...direct and blatant attacks on the families of gun victims.
And it is disgusting to see such attacks cheered on here at DU.
beevul
(12,194 posts)It appears you have it backwards.
The families in question were the ones making a legal attack.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)GUNZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
tularetom
(23,664 posts)The Brady bunch conned them into filing a baseless lawsuit against a merchant for selling ammunition to a customer.
Why not sue the state of Colorado for failing to recognize that Mr Holmes was a dangerous loony and having him locked up before he was able to shoot anybody?
Why not sue the theater for admitting him that day?
See how stupid it sounds? Thats how stupid it is to blame the store that sold him the ammo.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)It appears he doesn't know how to behave.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)But I'm a lifelong optimist, I actually believe people are open to listening to the opinions of others.
Oh well, screw him.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,483 posts)...you may as well flame-out.
DonP
(6,185 posts)blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)It certainly looks like being put on time out feeds some narcissistic desire to see himself as a victim. He pushes to have his posts hidden. He did the same thing on DI; about to come off his time out there as well.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)I expected the 2 hides to be here.
I'm sure he'll be back on July 15th
We should really start a pool and donate the money to a charity of the winner's choice
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)he won't be back until Aug. 1st.
He has 6 hides now.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Welcome back!!
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)I've no doubt that my return has been noted by certain individuals.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I am back to zero myself😀
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Thanks religion group and the jurors 👍
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)lack the credibility to define the terms of "hatred" and "Democratic."
You don't even affirm a woman's right to self-defense so what makes you think you're concern for victims is viewed as carrying any degree of sincerity?
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)into hate for gun violence victims. Par for the course in your filthy world. You've pulled this dirty move before. What's your game, SS? Trying to provoke Democratic supporters of the RKBA into getting posts hidden, or are you actually so full of (gun) hate that you can't process what others actually write?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)seems he hates some others too, look at the hides he received in religion. He is now back on vacation and the admins should really look at his account.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)If a Democratic supporter of the RKBA engaged in the ugly smearing that SS has, they'd be tombstoned in a N.Y.C. HEARTBEAT.
Luckily for him there is a brazen double-standard in rule enforcement.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I have seen that, sadly