Newtown families to announce lawsuit against gunmaker

the firm should also be required to change it's name to shysters, ambulance chasers, and quacks and put that on billboards, company letterheads and business cards.

Besides the fact that the suit is frivolous and will be thrown out, Bushmaster has changed hands since the Sandy Hook shooting.

It was owned by Cerberus Capital Management when the shooting happened... now the company belongs to Freedom Group.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

But the lawyers are just doing their job,if they sold the case to the families is irrelevant, the families are still the ones that have the choice to do it or not.
To try and intimidate them with some ridiculous idea you presented is not how our court system works.

a reply to: neo96

im gonna read the replies but this is BS
reminds me of the movie runaway jury

i dont see how the manufacturer could be held responsible

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: stormbringer1701

But the lawyers are just doing their job,if they sold the case to the families is irrelevant, the families are still the ones that have the choice to do it or not.
To try and intimidate them with some ridiculous idea you presented is not how our court system works.

yeah. and that is what is wrong with it. these crumb bums go after medical tech firms when something (rarely) goes wrong and scare people into not getting treatments they need and slow down innovation. they need their asses paddled in stocks in public.

I don't get the lawsuit, myself.

The guns were made to kill people and they killed people.

I am interested to see what kinds of arguments are made and what kinds of precedents are set, if any.

LOL WHAT?

A lawyers job is to get criminals off, and to turn innocent people in to criminals.

Hell they have a hell of a lot in common with politicians.

these things are what happens when you have a billion lawyers desperate for work and only a 10 thousand cases worthy of litigation. the solution: a draw down of lawyers and a quota for those that go to law school in the future. that way there would be enough real cases for the lawyers. they should be managed like wildlife. shot with a tranquilizer, tagged, fitted with a radio transmitter and released in yellow stone. a well managed lawyer population is a happy lawyer population.

(ask me what happens during hunting season...)

Isn't the time for filing a lawsuit over? Everywhere I have lived you only have 1 year. Not sure about CT a reply to: neo96

ETA.. I don't think a North Carolina based company can even be properly served to answer a lawsuit in CT. I could be wrong



Seems in CT it is 2 years ..Times up if it hasn't been filed already
www.nolo.com...

a reply to: AgentShillington

Guns DO NOTHING by themselves.

They never have.

originally posted by: aightism2
If I was a judge I would throw that out of court

that's like suing the makers of pavements because your kid slipped in dog # and broke his back on the concrete

Yes, but if the doggy poo was outside your shop and you washed the pavement to clean it up and your kid slipped in the wet patch, you can be done??

This is absolutely ridiculous. This company is legally producing firearms, and they are not required to make sure every single person who buys one goes on to secure it, and does not kill anyone with it. This is a great example of the frivolous lawsuits that have become so common in this country in my opinion. Instead of suing the manufacturers of firearms, why not attempt to change the law, again considering that the production of these firearms is perfectly legal. And I'm sure this has something to do with the whole assault rifle thing, but like I've said in the past, a weapon is NOT an assault rifle based on its appearance. What makes an assault rifle an assault rifle is the fact that it can fire multiple rounds with a single pull of the trigger, either fully automatic or burst-fire. A semi-automatic rifle can never be termed an assault rifle. Would you classify a .22 caliber rifle, or something even smaller, as being an assault rifle simply because it looks like an AR-15? These people are delusional if they think that the manufacturer of this firearm is to blame for what occurred that day. I can understand them wanting to blame somebody, but put the blame where it actually lies.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: AgentShillington

Guns DO NOTHING by themselves.

They never have.

What the hell does that have to do with anything that I said?

Only a fool thinks guns aren't designed and made to kill.

Hang on - y'all are happy to spout Ron Paul's libertarianism, and oppression of the state, and rail against Obama being a socialist...

The flip side of all that is unbridled capitalism and doing whatever you can to make a buck.

Can't have it both ways.....either the lawyers are free to practice their craft......or you want bigger government to regulate them.....which is it??

originally posted by: AgentShillington

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: AgentShillington

Guns DO NOTHING by themselves.

They never have.

What the hell does that have to do with anything that I said?

Only a fool thinks guns aren't designed and made to kill.

and? so are jets and tanks. and rat traps. it' designed to kill. hardly a crime or even civil liability.

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: AgentShillington

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: AgentShillington

Guns DO NOTHING by themselves.

They never have.

What the hell does that have to do with anything that I said?

Only a fool thinks guns aren't designed and made to kill.

and? so are jets and tanks. and rat traps. it' designed to kill. hardly a crime or even civil liability.

I agree with you.

That was my main point.

These guns were designed to kill people, and they killed people. It isn't outside of their intended use, so I don't see how this lawsuit is a winner.

a reply to: neo96

Seems like the logical next step in the overall scheme of things.

I am sorry to say, but not one aspect of the official story makes sense.

The "families" have been running around spreading the anti-gun agenda for the past couple years, while raking in millions, now they move on to attempting to sue the company!

Strongly recommend watching the documentary, We should talk about sandy hook, which has of course been debunked, however the DNA anomalies alone deserve investigation!

originally posted by: Answer
Besides the fact that the suit is frivolous and will be thrown out, Bushmaster has changed hands since the Sandy Hook shooting.

It was owned by Cerberus Capital Management when the shooting happened... now the company belongs to Freedom Group.

That is has changed hands won't matter. I think the nub of the suite is that the gun designate was meant for military use. I don't know how much ice that will cut when there is ex-military stuff all over the place, maybe it's because they made a civilian 'version' as well. All very tenuous stuff.
www.usatoday.com...

Anyway, who actually wants one of these things even for 'target practice' that's a load of crap, guns are made to kill, and it's so easy.

How low can humanity sink? Their time is running out so they slap a lawsuit. So then they'll show pics of their kids, get emotional on tv, in the court and hopefully they can earn and put a crack in the gun industry. Pathetic.

I hope they win. If the gunmakers have to pay big..they will go crying to the government.

Which in turn would make it harder for just anybody to get guns..which is a good thing.

Would anyone allow a child to stay with someone if they had a history of mental illness? Of course not....so why should that not apply to guns?