Sandy Hook families sue Bushmaster

[2001sleeper]

holy chit, that is a long document.
It will take a bit to get through that. hahahaha

 

[hoamskilet]

Some of the garbage in this thread is so ridiculous I can't even find a way to respond to it.

But to comment on the OP, the lawsuit is absurd. If they win then anybody that has died or been injured as the result of any man made object should be able to sue the company that made it. Absolutely insane

 

[Riptide]

They target shoot through out the year so they are more proficient with their weapon, but the weapon is still intended to be used for its fundamental purpose. I have never met somebody that solely owns a gun for target shooting. I am sure a few exist, but I have never met one.

And yet the vast majority of people who own them have never put a bullet through a human being with one. Typical uses are to put a bullet through paper and to a lesser degree an animal.

I'm not sure how many times I must say the same thing before it sinks in. People complain about how their purpose is to kill someone. Therefore they are bad and we should get rid of them. And yet while tens of millions of them are around they are only used for that purpose a tiny minority of the time. Therefore the relevancy of that purpose is of questionable importance when making the aforementioned argument.

As an aside. People making the argument that an armed revolution would be impossible against the military. They really aren't very creative. Such a thing would it come to pass could play out in many different ways. The military could splinter. The military could stay out of it entirely. The military could fight with or against wholly. Even in the case of the latter tens of millions of citizens would be a huge problem for them to deal with. A country falling apart from the inside like that is going to have a hard time maintaining a modern military force. Remember it all needs oil and gasoline to run on. They don't use double A batteries.

 

[Bdubbs]

And yet the vast majority of people who own them have never put a bullet through a human being with one. Typical uses are to put a bullet through paper and to a lesser degree an animal.

I'm not sure how many times I must say the same thing before it sinks in. People complain about how their purpose is to kill someone. Therefore they are bad and we should get rid of them. And yet while tens of millions of them are around they are only used for that purpose a tiny minority of the time. Therefore the relevancy of that purpose is of questionable importance when making the aforementioned argument.

As an aside. People making the argument that an armed revolution would be impossible against the military. They really aren't very creative. Such a thing would it come to pass could play out in many different ways. The military could splinter. The military could stay out of it entirely. The military could fight with or against wholly. Even in the case of the latter tens of millions of citizens would be a huge problem for them to deal with. A country falling apart from the inside like that is going to have a hard time maintaining a modern military force. Remember it all needs oil and gasoline to run on. They don't use double A batteries.

+1. I don't have any AR15's anymore but will be buying one sooner than later. All I used them for is hitting paper or clays on a stand. People can't figure out that it's a fun hobby for the majority of us and that's it! If someone breaks into my house I'm grabbing my loaded .45 1911 with hollow points.

 

[Tezz500]

I've been thinking about getting an ak74... I think I'll slap me a hellion sticker on it and call her the twin twat

 

[RDJ]

Really the US census and NRA say that their is around 80-95 million citizens that own at least a firearm in the US, but there is roughly 275 million firearms in circulation. Where the US military has a problem is unlike in Afghanistan the middle east or on some other foreign soil, their family members can be targets for reprisals over here. It makes you stop and think before just following orders that are questionable. So I say at least 35 to 45% of the military would not follow any gun grab issued by the federal government because of this possibility of having disgruntled citizens going after their families.

The military I have talked to have said to a man that they would not take up arms against U.S. citizens if ordered to if that order was to confiscate weapons from law abiding citizens.

As for the US constifution, it was written by people far smarter than me and ratified by all the states. They agreed to what it said, not to an ever changing document..

this is incorrect. I don't know if hey were smarter than you but they wrote the constitution SPECIFICALLY as a living document so it could be changed by the will of the people. that is why we have ammendments, and there is a process to follow to change it. even now there is a move on to have a "constitutional convention" which could, if it is successful, rewrite the constitution. That constitution would have to then be voted on before it could be enforced.

I have heard this argument and really don't think it would ever gain traction as times are different.
If a "militia" was formed today with intent on fighting government it would be stomped out so fast by the military. The American public would have to be extremely crafty and well organized to fight the goveremt these days and let's face it, that is going to be impossible.
I fail to see how the public could make a revolution or civil type of war with the governments and it be successful. Not exactly a good place to be, but the government knows this and that is why things are starting to get out of hand.

see my comment above. While I have admittedly not talked to anywhere close to a majority of the military, it appears that most of them would not participate in a confiscation of firearms from law abiding citizens. Personnally I think the number that would is fairly small, since the military is made up of folks who have their own private guns and would not want those taken either.

and NOTHING is impossible when it comes to this kind of thing. Liberals would like to think that they can push the majority around like a school yard bully and sometimes they do and get away with it. but there is a line that when crossed, even the silent majority will stand up and kick a liberals ass

 

[2001sleeper]

People complain about how their purpose is to kill someone. Therefore they are bad and we should get rid of them.

I will always agree that the fundamental purpose of a gun is to kill, but I have never stated that they are bad and that we should get rid of them.
Just wanted to clear that up.

 

[2001sleeper]

and NOTHING is impossible when it comes to this kind of thing.

Here is another perspective:
It is sort of sad that it is thought that the action of taking away guns is really the only thing that bothers people enough to form militias and revolt. The government knows the potential of this type of reaction and they just use it to keep people focused on that only item. When in reality there are larger topics taking place that impact your livelihood more. I would prefer that people "revolt" over government actions that directly impact your livelihood. For example, absurd bank bailouts with no accountability, unemployment rates, the horrible decline in the value of a dollar, import/export policy, government spending in general, the great divide between the 1% and the rest, stagnant wages with growing inflation, and the list goes on about things that directly impact our livelihood and how we care for our families. I personally think that we focus on the real problems too little and by the time the government wants to take the guns this place will be a huge poop hole and we will have no hope in fighting it. This is why I think it will eventually be a losing battle.

 

[bglf83]

The military I have talked to have said to a man that they would not take up arms against U.S. citizens if ordered to if that order was to confiscate weapons from law abiding citizens.

this is incorrect. I don't know if hey were smarter than you but they wrote the constitution SPECIFICALLY as a living document so it could be changed by the will of the people. that is why we have ammendments, and there is a process to follow to change it. even now there is a move on to have a "constitutional convention" which could, if it is successful, rewrite the constitution. That constitution would have to then be voted on before it could be enforced.

see my comment above. While I have admittedly not talked to anywhere close to a majority of the military, it appears that most of them would not participate in a confiscation of firearms from law abiding citizens. Personnally I think the number that would is fairly small, since the military is made up of folks who have their own private guns and would not want those taken either.

and NOTHING is impossible when it comes to this kind of thing. Liberals would like to think that they can push the majority around like a school yard bully and sometimes they do and get away with it. but there is a line that when crossed, even the silent majority will stand up and kick a liberals ass

I agree we have an ammendment process, seems like that was a given....

 

[RDJ]

I agree we have an ammendment process, seems like that was a given....

not according to your statement that I quoted. when you make flat out statements like that you are going to get called on it, since it is incorrect on it's face

 

[hb712]

I have heard this argument and really don't think it would ever gain traction as times are different.
If a "militia" was formed today with intent on fighting government it would be stomped out so fast by the military. The American public would have to be extremely crafty and well organized to fight the goveremt these days and let's face it, that is going to be impossible.
I fail to see how the public could make a revolution or civil type of war with the governments and it be successful. Not exactly a good place to be, but the government knows this and that is why things are starting to get out of hand.

I made no argument. All I did was state that his interpretation is incorrect per the SCOTUS. I'm not getting into a discussion about insurgent warfare or anything like that, nor would that be warranted per the context of my comment. For clarification on the meaning as interpreted by US courts, just do a little research. Those cases will cover far more than I am willing to address here. Further, they have nothing to do with a "protection from tyranny" styled argument.

 

[focussvtracer]

This is priceless. I have never seen someone this oblivious to what happens in real life. I was going through his posts on all these threads and I have yet to find a thread that a mod didnt tell him to shut up.

Edit. I have to break this down some

Ok lets say for some reason guns are all banned

Now nationwide 200,000,000 million warrants will have to be issued.
A. Who will write allof these warrants? Sub Contract it out to the Chinese
B. Where would you get all of the officers to enforce it and serve them? Created 100,000,000 more police jobs?
C. Where would you hold 200,000,000 detainiees after the warrants have been served? Make prison camps?
D. How would you handle the violent non-compliance people? Those that now choose to drive to work with a loaded gun and extra ammo and the notion that they may get into a gun fight with a officer today to fight the warrant? Instruct officers to shoot on site then serve warrant?

Waiting for the new/old site troll to answer

 

[Proto]

The military I have talked to have said to a man that they would not take up arms against U.S. citizens if ordered to if that order was to confiscate weapons from law abiding citizens.

As a Veteran, I can assure you, that order wouldn't even make it down to the soldiers.

 

[RDJ]

As a Veteran, I can assure you, that order wouldn't even make it down to the soldiers.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Tezz500]

Regardless if they followed the order or not... Or if the people remained free or not...

You fight the fights that need fighting. PERIOD.

That's HONOR. That's what garners RESPECT.. Fighting regardless of the odds.

 

[Brutal Metal]

Gene Rosen is an actor, Ryan a pawn and Adam a creation...

 

[Bdubbs]

Regardless if they followed the order or not... Or if the people remained free or not...

You fight the fights that need fighting. PERIOD.

That's HONOR. That's what garners RESPECT.. Fighting regardless of the odds.

+1. My wife and I were talking about this a couple years ago. And she told me, "If shit hits the fan, and they start going door to door trying to take American citizens guns away from us, I'll be right by your side fighting with you". And I truly believe she would.