2A GROUPS STUNNED AFTER COURT ALLOWS SANDY HOOK FAMILIES TO SUE GUN MAKERS

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Just now, Unidentified said:

It is not a deterrent (scientifically proven) and you're one of the few countries in the world where it's legally okay to abuse your kids. 

 

 

Abuse our kids?  Too funny.  My kids were FAR from abused,  and they have turned out great.  But there WERE repercussions, some very strong, when they screwed up.  And I hope they do the same with their kids.

 

As to the deterrence... look at how many people call one another liars today, and nothing is done about it.  150 years ago, doing so would get one dead in a hurry.  Yes, the fear of death IS a deterrent,  except for those without at least a miniscule of decency and morality.

[Dashinka 23,248]

31 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  It strange for someone to think is happening with every judge, every time they don't agree with the decision, yes. 

Is there proof that what you are suggesting is happening?

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

8 minutes ago, Unidentified said:

No you clearly have no clue about what domestic violence and mental abuse is. I'm not going to give you a lesson. 

Not sure if you were here in the US, or perhaps even aware of it, but there was a push not so long ago to prevent all military veterans from owning guns.  Are you ok with viewing our veterans as "mentally ill" enough to not own a gun?

[Boiler 43,438]

1 minute ago, ALFKAD said:

Not sure if you were here in the US, or perhaps even aware of it, but there was a push not so long ago to prevent all military veterans from owning guns.  Are you ok with viewing our veterans as "mentally ill" enough to not own a gun?

PTSD?

[Steeleballz 7,550]

7 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Is there proof that what you are suggesting is happening?

 

   I can't prove what someone is thinking no. I can only go by the comments and reactions I see. I'm certainly not saying judges can't be wrong. I'm saying if a person always believes the judge is wrong when they don't agree with the decision, the reality is probably different. 

[Dashinka 23,248]

1 minute ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   I can't prove what someone is thinking no. I can only go by the comments and reactions I see. I'm certainly not saying judges can't be wrong. I'm saying if a person always believes the judge is wrong when they don't agree with the decision, the reality is probably different. 

I certainly don't think judges are always wrong always being the operative word, but I certainly treat their opinions and rulings with skepticism.  Therefore I am happy there is a check system in place.

[Dashinka 23,248]

20 minutes ago, Unidentified said:

It is not a deterrent (scientifically proven) and you're one of the few countries in the world where it's legally okay to abuse your kids. 

 

 

How do they scientifically prove that?

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

8 minutes ago, Boiler said:

PTSD?

Some PTSD would qualify one as not a good candidate to own a gun.  I know some who fall into this category.

 

But to label ALL vets as unfit is not only a disservice to those who served, but perhaps a first step in taking guns out of the hands of experts at using them, should the time ever come to confiscate them all.

[Dashinka 23,248]

9 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

Some PTSD would qualify one as not a good candidate to own a gun.  I know some who fall into this category.

 

But to label ALL vets as unfit is not only a disservice to those who served, but perhaps a first step in taking guns out of the hands of experts at using them, should the time ever come to confiscate them all.

The police will protect us all...

 

Oh, I forgot, the cops are bad too.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

18 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

Precisely. 

 

As to why he had access, probably for the same reason anyone in my abode who knows where they are kept have access.  I keep them loaded, and they are not locked up.  I'm sure the shooter's mom either didn't lock them up, or the kid knew where the key was.  Either way, locks only deter the honest criminals.

 

   Sure, but there is no one at your abode who has severe psychological issues. Lanza had been diagnosed for years prior to the shooting and had never received any kind of therapy or treatment. There was a report that said his mother tended to give in to the son rather than make sure he received or followed through with treatment, and that his deterioration had been progressive. He had been obsessed with mass murder and Columbine for years. No way he should have ever had the opportunity to have access to a firearm. As a parent you can't ignore and look past these things. You do have that responsibility.

 

  My guess is obviously his mom did not think he was capable of what he actually did or she would probably have done more to prevent it. However it often seems to be the case, the "not my kid" or "can't believe it" response. In retrospect it often seems like it's not that there were no signs of a problem, rather that the people who actually could have done something were not paying attention. 

[Boiler 43,438]

8 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

The police will protect us all...

 

Oh, I forgot, the cops are bad too.

And also have PTSD

[Steeleballz 7,550]

14 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I certainly don't think judges are always wrong always being the operative word, but I certainly treat their opinions and rulings with skepticism.  Therefore I am happy there is a check system in place.

 

  As am I. Which is why I said I don't really see an issue here. It's not activism. They made a decision that one part of state law applies. Obviously there were differing opinions by the judges, but I'm not sure why the reaction is as if the plaintiffs won the case. All it is saying is that a small part of their case is applicable under state law. Which is true. It's not saying they are on strong legal ground to make that case. In fact, as was said previously, there is a very good chance the decision will not be in their favor and they may end up paying the defendant's legal fees. All this means is they can go to court on this issue. Not that they should.

[Boiler 43,438]

Reminds me of that girl who called the cops on her father claiming abuse because he took her cell phone, so yes you can not bandy around terms without stating what you mean.

[jg121783 3,907]

3 hours ago, Unidentified said:

It is not a deterrent (scientifically proven) and you're one of the few countries in the world where it's legally okay to abuse your kids. 

 

 

I couldn't disagree with you more. If you look at your kids wrong CPS is at your door wanting to inspect your house. And if they find a single dirty dish in your sink your kids are gone. Then your looking at a 6 month to a year minimum court process to get your kids back from these idiots. They are looking for reasons to take your kids. I could get into some stories about people I know but I won't do that here. My wife is in the Philippines and some of the ways of disciplining your children that are the norm there would get you thrown in jail here. I had to sit down and have a talk with my wife about this. So to sum it up you don't have the first clue what you are talking about.

[Boiler 43,438]

A local cop got canned and I know the story because his step daughter who filed the complaint is a real piece of work and I know people who teach at that school.