Latest Breaking News

SunSeeker

(58,244 posts)

119. It is acknowledging reality. Period. nt

Reply to hack89 (Reply #117)

Tue Jul 28, 2015, 02:52 PM

Jul 2015

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

231 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Aurora Victim�s Parents Face Bankruptcy After Suing Online Ammo Dealers, Vow To Change Colorado Law [View all] angka Jul 2015 OP

They knew what the law was when they chose to sue bluestateguy Jul 2015 #1

You are defending this law? Geebus... hlthe2b Jul 2015 #2

There is much defense of the indefensible here at the so-called "Underground" villager Jul 2015 #3

I am only pointing out that the law is what it is bluestateguy Jul 2015 #4

Way to totally miss the point... hlthe2b Jul 2015 #5

The lawyer filing the suit on their behalf should have (probably must have) Hoppy Jul 2015 #8

If the lawyer did not warn them... jberryhill Jul 2015 #15

Bingo. McCamy Taylor Jul 2015 #16

Yes. The lawyer should not have taken this case and put this family at such financial risk. nt Mojorabbit Jul 2015 #121

Are you defending the law giving blanket immunity to gun manufacturers? Fred Sanders Jul 2015 #57

The law TeddyR Jul 2015 #70

You are misrepresenting what the PLCAA does. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #80

That is simply untrue TeddyR Jul 2015 #86

Why did gun manufacturers need this exemption from product liability law? SunSeeker Jul 2015 #90

Because the plan in place by Handgun Control Inc was to file lawsuit after lawsuit Telcontar Jul 2015 #93

If the lawsuits were meritless or frivolous, they could have gotten sanctions. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #94

No, they couldn't Telcontar Jul 2015 #100

Yes they could. Rule 11 in federal court and CCP 128.5 in CA court allow sanctions. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #103

Do you believe the bullshit you utter? Telcontar Jul 2015 #109

It is not bullshit. It is basic products liability law. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #112

Yeah, okay Telcontar Jul 2015 #132

Post removed Post removed Jul 2015 #137

Your shouting does not make what I said bullshit. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #138

alert results irisblue Jul 2015 #142

Thanks, irisblue. nt SunSeeker Jul 2015 #143

You need a refresher on basic products liability law. branford Jul 2015 #144

Nope, I'm good. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #145

Are you really claiming that products explicitly protected branford Jul 2015 #146

Not mere "potential" misuse. Readily foreseeable misuse by the very nature of the design. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #148

Wrong. X_Digger Jul 2015 #133

I'm correct, and the part you have in bold proves it. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #134

"It explicitly does exempt gun manufacturers from full liability for defective products" X_Digger Jul 2015 #136

You just erased the part you previously highlighted, that gave them immunity for criminal acts. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #139

Forget it, you're being willfully obtuse. See the post above about an actual lawsuit for.. X_Digger Jul 2015 #150

Nope, you are ignoring the craven text of PLCAA. nt SunSeeker Jul 2015 #151

Reality trumps your "interpretation". X_Digger Jul 2015 #153

You're arguing with something I did not say. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #154

Who said, "It explicitly does exempt gun manufacturers from full liability for defective products"? X_Digger Jul 2015 #155

Full liability means all product liability grounds that any other product manufacturer would face. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #157

Go ahead, try to sue Chevy when a drunk driving a Camaro plows into your car. X_Digger Jul 2015 #165

You do not understand product liability law nor the PLCAA. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #166

Brakes overheating is a PRODUCT DEFECT.. X_Digger Jul 2015 #167

So is a civilian weapon designed to mow down dozens of people in seconds. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #169

There is no such thing. beevul Jul 2015 #178

Spare me the mansplaining. It is a military weapon that is now marketed as a civilian weapon. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #181

Factual correctness is not mansplaining. beevul Jul 2015 #183

Virtually all weapons have some military pedigree, branford Jul 2015 #188

You repeatedly offer your opinion as a substitute for fact and accepted jurisprudence. branford Jul 2015 #180

So, when a flying piece of metal at high velocity kills or injurs somebody, ... stone space Jul 2015 #193

It's not a design defect if it functioned as intended, but was used criminally. branford Jul 2015 #210

"perhaps we should look to see what design defect allowed that to happen." EX500rider Jul 2015 #219

Cite me the polls that show "vast public support" for the PLCAA. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #196

Thread winner. You just accused a seasoned lawyer of 'mistating...the law". Just wow. beevul Jul 2015 #199

AR-15s are military weapons. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #202

Your own cite disproves you. beevul Jul 2015 #205

No it doesn't. Making it semi-automatic just made it legal to sell to civilians. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #208

Nope. Making it semi-auto removes the military function. beevul Jul 2015 #212

It is historically a military weapon; marketing it to civilians does not change this fact. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #217

Put down the goalposts. beevul Jul 2015 #223

"It is still an air-cooled barrel designed to spew out large amounts of bullets in rapid succession" EX500rider Jul 2015 #218

No, not like all firearms. It's barrel is made to withstand the heat of prolonged rapid fire. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #220

No, like all modern firearms... EX500rider Jul 2015 #221

You're just making shit up and ignoring my links. No point in this conversation. Buh bye. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #222

I'm not the one ignorant of the subject. EX500rider Jul 2015 #226

If you or others believe the Second Amendment is harmful or no longer serves a purpose, branford Jul 2015 #201

Don't need to repeal the 2nd Am., just change out one right wing justice for a Dem appointee. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #204

Even if Heller and its progeny disappeared tomorrow, little would change. branford Jul 2015 #209

A lot would change with a Dem majority on the Supreme Court. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #211

It's still democracy even when you lose. branford Jul 2015 #214

Now we get to the crux of the matter, and where you go off the rails. X_Digger Jul 2015 #227

Selling an AR-15 with a 100-round magazines and 6,000 bullets to a nut online is "Fucking stupid." SunSeeker Jul 2015 #229

OMG a semi-auto gun! Scawwy! And it's painted black, so it's sooo much more dangerous. X_Digger Jul 2015 #230

They should have thought of this possibility 25 years ago, BEFORE their daughter was conceived lostnfound Jul 2015 #14

+ 1 MILLION appalachiablue Jul 2015 #49

I had no idea this site had republicans. trillion Jul 2015 #96

Oh look! The "you're a republican" remark. How quaint. (nt) Inkfreak Jul 2015 #108

Quaintness does not deny accuracy. LanternWaste Jul 2015 #114

Oh...it's you. Inkfreak Jul 2015 #131

Nor does it denote accuracy. beevul Jul 2015 #147

As you have seen... malokvale77 Jul 2015 #101

Jessica... Dont call me Shirley Jul 2015 #6

And such an attitude is the very reason why the plaintiffs have a judgment against them. branford Jul 2015 #11

This law is just a sick representation of weapons manufacturers and sellers bullying of the victims Dont call me Shirley Jul 2015 #18

How did a weapons manufacturer or a seller TeddyR Jul 2015 #74

Manufacturers are routinely held liable for damages caused by their legal products. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #91

Manufacturers are most certainly not held liable for the CRIMINAL misuse branford Jul 2015 #92

That's what the PLCAA was enacted to do, even when that criminal misuse was foreseeable. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #95

If you or anyone else believes no individual -needs- any particular firearm branford Jul 2015 #102

Spare me the bullshit reading of the 2nd Am foisted on us by Scalia. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #104

The Democratic Party and the president disagree with you hack89 Jul 2015 #106

Sadly, because of Heller, that is now the law. Dems and Obama are just accepting that fact. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #113

They didn't have to specifically put it in the party platform. hack89 Jul 2015 #117

It is acknowledging reality. Period. nt SunSeeker Jul 2015 #119

So you really think they don't think the 2A protects an individual right hack89 Jul 2015 #123

Ooh, ooh, can I answer? TeddyR Jul 2015 #127

I think Constitutional scholars hold the position of the Heller dissent. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #158

As Englishmen, the founders enjoyed an individual right to bear arms hack89 Jul 2015 #159

The provision was about maintaining citizen militias, not deification of guns. nt SunSeeker Jul 2015 #160

Not the right they enjoyed as Englishmen - that was an individual right to bear arms hack89 Jul 2015 #161

No, America's problem is gun nuts making shit up and stopping common sense gun control. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #162

We didn't get UBCs because it was bundled with registration and an AWB hack89 Jul 2015 #163

No, we didn't get UBC because 45 senators blocked the majority. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #164

Are you suddenly concerned with will of the majority? branford Jul 2015 #171

90% of Americans want universal background checks, not expanded concealed carry. nt SunSeeker Jul 2015 #174

We live in a democratic republic. branford Jul 2015 #184

I said the manufacturers were bullying the VICTIMS of gun violence!! Dont call me Shirley Jul 2015 #130

Just because the Republican-led Congress passed the PLCAA doesn't make it a good law. n/t pnwmom Jul 2015 #21

The federal law was passed with significant Democratic support in both Houses of Congress, branford Jul 2015 #22

Sanders also voted against the Brady bill, so his support of the PLCAA doesn't impress me. pnwmom Jul 2015 #27

Oh please. Republican Larry "Wide Stance " Craig sponsored that craven bill. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #28

time to require insurance on guns to cover the damage gun owners do to society nt msongs Jul 2015 #7

Insurance is designed to cover personal liability, not societal damage. branford Jul 2015 #12

/\ This deathrind Jul 2015 #32

Will your insurance company pay for criminal acts hack89 Jul 2015 #52

Galling. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #9

Except that's not what actually happened or what the law states. branford Jul 2015 #13

Bull. And it is the gun manufacturers who resort to "emotional, wildly inaccurate hyperbole." SunSeeker Jul 2015 #25

"Gun manufacturers know they are selling to nut cases" EX500rider Jul 2015 #118

Gun dealers are gun manufacturers' craven middlemen. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #120

You're either licenced it sell guns or you're not... EX500rider Jul 2015 #122

It's not all of them, it's a small minority who are very obvious. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #126

Guns is sooooo special. flamin lib Jul 2015 #10

No, this is what happens when Personal Injury Lawyers ... MicaelS Jul 2015 #24

Well TeddyR Jul 2015 #77

Are you upset that you are protected as an FFL holder sarisataka Jul 2015 #78

9/11!! Nine Eleventy!!etc changed everything!!ish Electric Monk Jul 2015 #224

If the gun dealers try to collect, there will almost certainly be a political backlash McCamy Taylor Jul 2015 #17

There's no real risk in collecting against the plaintiffs. branford Jul 2015 #20

Not surprised they would get left high and dry Duckhunter935 Jul 2015 #19

My prediction: Dr. Strange Jul 2015 #55

The cynical Brady Center put these parents up to it and now won't pay the bill. aikoaiko Jul 2015 #23

Link to the "Brady Center putting them up to it" please. nt SunSeeker Jul 2015 #26

Will this link work? Duckhunter935 Jul 2015 #34

No. Fuck the Washinton Times. I won't even click on that Moonie paper. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #50

Alright, here is a much better one Duckhunter935 Jul 2015 #62

That does NOT say the Brady Center "put them up to it." SunSeeker Jul 2015 #63

Do you consider it relevant sarisataka Jul 2015 #64

Sure. This is a report from the LA Times. aikoaiko Jul 2015 #53

The headline and picture caption says the family filed it and it was the family's lawsuit. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #65

Lol, wut? X_Digger Jul 2015 #135

I don't deny the Brady Center helped, just that there's no evidence they "put them up to it." SunSeeker Jul 2015 #140

The father, the Brady Center Employee? You sure you want to stick with that? n/t X_Digger Jul 2015 #152

I will until there's evidence that the Brady Center "put them up to it." SunSeeker Jul 2015 #156

And then there is the Brady Bunch themselves. aikoaiko Jul 2015 #54

You think the Brady campaign does not deserve the support of Democrats?? You mock them...interesting Fred Sanders Jul 2015 #58

They jumped the shark a long time ago. Stunts like this don't make sense. aikoaiko Jul 2015 #60

Understood. The "Brady Bunch", as you call them, bad, gun manufacturers, good. Got it! Fred Sanders Jul 2015 #61

Okie dokie, Fred. aikoaiko Jul 2015 #66

My take TeddyR Jul 2015 #79

The press release makes clear that it was filed "on behalf of" the Phillips family. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #67

Pro-tip: this lawsuit had nothing to do with the sale of guns to anyone. aikoaiko Jul 2015 #73

More factless assertions on your part. nt SunSeeker Jul 2015 #76

Don't they both work for the Brady Center? tammywammy Jul 2015 #71

They probably will pay eventually unless the plan was to financially self-emulate the whole time... aikoaiko Jul 2015 #84

The ammosexuals on this thread make me ill. nt valerief Jul 2015 #29

Nasty references to sex and guns make me ill. MicaelS Jul 2015 #30

It's their go-to insult. NaturalHigh Jul 2015 #33

It is very childish Duckhunter935 Jul 2015 #39

The desire to make sexual references in regards to a mere object seems LanternWaste Jul 2015 #115

Please, I don't care about your silly rant. Goodbye forever. nt valerief Jul 2015 #35

Typical n/t MicaelS Jul 2015 #38

Don't like being called out on your insults Duckhunter935 Jul 2015 #40

Is the typical TeddyR Jul 2015 #87

Insults directed at DU members make me ill Duckhunter935 Jul 2015 #37

Ironically, I'm not, nor ever have been, a gun owner. It's my choice. branford Jul 2015 #42

I didn't provide arguments. You have me confused with someone else. valerief Jul 2015 #43

The passive-aggressive voice and the cut and paste from the NRA is transparent. How cute they think Fred Sanders Jul 2015 #59

I suppose you can provide specific examples of your "cut and paste" accusation? Marengo Jul 2015 #215

You obviously do not know but your own post is passive-aggressive. A gun lover, I presume? Fred Sanders Jul 2015 #216

"Cut and paste" has a specific definition. Your usage of it would indicate you can provide... Marengo Jul 2015 #228

Who exactly TeddyR Jul 2015 #83

In response to me TeddyR Jul 2015 #128

+1 Electric Monk Jul 2015 #225

Me too. trillion Aug 2015 #231

Isn't it pretty common for the complainant... NaturalHigh Jul 2015 #31

No. branford Jul 2015 #44

default in UK and Canada is Angel Martin Jul 2015 #51

It's something I would change in the law in order to give juries the task also of deciding if a case 24601 Jul 2015 #105

Determining if a claim is legally frivolous is an issue of law, not fact, branford Jul 2015 #129

As is the poor refusing to bring a valid lawsuit to bear for fear of bankruptcy. LanternWaste Jul 2015 #116

Brady Center attorneys were the ones that filed the lawsuit MichMan Jul 2015 #36

I would think they should pay Duckhunter935 Jul 2015 #41

Although they suffered a terrible tragedy, the Philips' were not innocent dupes in the litigation. branford Jul 2015 #46

Yes, I know Duckhunter935 Jul 2015 #47

Except the gun control / rights issue is so established and polarizing branford Jul 2015 #48

Nope. Attorneys don't pay a judgment when the client loses. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #72

The attorney's filed it on behalf of the Phillips family, who were the plaintiffs. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #69

Lawyers should be held accountable MichMan Jul 2015 #45

What makes you think this family was unaware of the risks? SunSeeker Jul 2015 #75

Your 5 year old being ripped apart in their schoolroom by bullets from an assault rifle...makes you Fred Sanders Jul 2015 #110

Exactly. Compassion and empathy is why I am a Democrat. nt SunSeeker Jul 2015 #111

The insane Colorado law giving blanket immunity to gun factories from even filing of a suit would have to Fred Sanders Jul 2015 #56

In addition to the specific law sarisataka Jul 2015 #68

You're very good on spelling out what the law is... RandySF Jul 2015 #81

I have no issue sarisataka Jul 2015 #85

Typical of how gun humpers work. RandySF Jul 2015 #82

So the state TeddyR Jul 2015 #88

Yes, I would call the State of CO a gun jumper for passing this law. RandySF Jul 2015 #89

I think you nailed it with gun humper. trillion Jul 2015 #99

+1000 trillion Jul 2015 #98

Wow, can someone recommend a liberal site? trillion Jul 2015 #97

LOL SunSeeker Jul 2015 #141

Post removed Post removed Jul 2015 #107

this is the law many corps added so they can't be sued. the law people were worried about trade TPP Sunlei Jul 2015 #124

Wow, this really turned into a debate here. angka Jul 2015 #125

Both parents are paid employees of the brady campaign. beevul Jul 2015 #149

Did it ever occur to you that these parents joined the Brady Center to try to stop gun violence? SunSeeker Jul 2015 #170

That doesn't change the fact that they knew full well what they were getting into... beevul Jul 2015 #172

The PLCAA is "ethically, morally and legally bankrupt." SunSeeker Jul 2015 #173

No. beevul Jul 2015 #175

A product liability suit is the proper purview of the courts. nt SunSeeker Jul 2015 #176

Not for misuse of a correctly functioning constitutionally protected device, it isn't. N/T beevul Jul 2015 #177

It is defective if it is an unreasonably dangerous design. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #179

Its not an unreasonably dangerous design. beevul Jul 2015 #182

When was the cigarette designed? stone space Jul 2015 #190

I don't know, is smoking misuse of the cigarette? beevul Jul 2015 #192

The Tobacco companies had problems mainly because they failed to disclose branford Jul 2015 #197

Morally bankrupt? stone space Jul 2015 #187

Do you actually listen to yourself? beevul Jul 2015 #191

The manufacturer turned around and attacked the gun victims, with your cheering and support. stone space Jul 2015 #195

Most people call that defending themselves legally after being attacked legally. beevul Jul 2015 #198

Your hatred for gun victims is noted. stone space Jul 2015 #200

They didn't attack anyone. The manufacturers themselves were attacked legally. beevul Jul 2015 #203

No, I "hate" it when litigants abuse the judicial system with clearly meritless claims branford Jul 2015 #206

You confuse being a fool with being an immoral asshole. stone space Jul 2015 #207

Moral people don't knowingly abuse the legal system by bringing meritless claims branford Jul 2015 #213

Demonizing gun victims over their employment? stone space Jul 2015 #185

Full disclosure of the facts, and the parents ties is demonization? beevul Jul 2015 #186

You bring up their employment as if it is a scandal. stone space Jul 2015 #189

Nope. beevul Jul 2015 #194

they should setup.a gofundme account Liberal_in_LA Jul 2015 #168