We should sue the Dems since all the shooters are Dems.
How about the right and instant standing to sue politicians associated with failed policy? Government for wasted tax dollars and lost wars? For unnecessary deaths of soldiers?
“The AR-15, which is designed to inflict maximum casualties with rapid bursts, should never have been available for purchase by civilians.”
Demonstrating the unbounded ignorance of the NYT. My Bushmaster has NEVER done a ‘rapid burst’...never. It’s a semiautomatic, idiots.
And, then to their notion of who should be able to buy it...what part of ‘shall not be infringed’ don’t you understand, NYT?
The pain those families feel is very real, and very deep. Of that, I have not doubt. But, that is not sufficient to suspend logic and reason.
Too funny! NYT writers haven’t clue one about firearms. The AR-15 fires bursts???? Bursts can only come from a selective fire weapon, or a fully automatic machine gun.
Moreover, the M-16 was based on the AR-15, not the other way around.
The 9th SCOTUS may be kinda important; I could see such a lawsuit getting to SCOTUS and undermining 2nd amendment by making it so hard to do business in this country that...
So we can sue Intel, AMD, and Microsoft for hackers and spammers, right New York Times?
Pure idiocy. Sue auto manufacturers for accidents then. What retarded thinking.
PS. The NY Times still exists because of Gatling guns on its roof during the draft riots.
Semi-auto rifles have been around since 1890. Why is it that only in the last THIRTY YEARS have they become a problem when the anti-gun bedwetters thought they looked like a “target of opportunity”.
KMA On so many levels.
During the 2016 United States presidential election the act became a campaign issue, particularly within the Democratic Party primaries.
Hillary Clinton stated that she would repeal the law if elected[17] saying "They are the only business in America that is wholly protected from any kind of liability. They can sell a gun to someone they know they shouldn't, and they won't be sued. There will be no consequences."[18] Shortly after Clinton made this claim, fact checker Politifact rated the statement false, noting that other businesses and entities in America have similar or greater levels of protection against liability, and that firearms dealers and manufacturers are still susceptible to lawsuits and liability.[19]
Bernie Sanders, who as a senator voted for the law in 2005, defended the law saying "If somebody has a gun and it falls into the hands of a murderer and the murderer kills somebody with a gun, do you hold the gun manufacturer responsible? Not any more than you would hold a hammer company responsible if somebody beats somebody over the head with a hammer."
_____________________________________________________________________________
I no longer have any sympathy for the Sandy Hook people. It's just a money grab, by any other name.
Bernie sounds like a libertarian.
Besides a new school [costing the state millions]....families are fighting over dividing up $28M or more.
Pathetic.
Then I should have the right to sue all those drug manufactures whose drugs destroyed my health along with the doctors who kept prescribing them knowing they were damaging my health, but as they police their own you can’t hardly prove it.
Can I sue the people who make Fence Post, one was used to murder my 16 year old son. Where is the ban on Fence Post?
New York Values