Citing Shield Law, Judge Dismisses Sandy Hook Families’ Suit Against Gun Manufacturer

By | October 17, 2016

  • October 17, 2016 at 1:32 pm
    mrbob says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 30
    Thumb down 1

    My only question is why did the judge in this case let it go for as long as she did. This one should have been dismissed on summary judgment as originally requested by the defendants.

    The plaintiff attorney’s in this case should be put on the hook for defense costs.

  • October 17, 2016 at 1:46 pm
    Fanucci says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 17
    Thumb down 18

    I agree with the Judge’s decision. This shooting was tragic, but everyone fails to see the real issue. Weapons cannot kill people, regardless of the type. All a weapon s is metal and plastic. People kill not weapons. This tragic event was when the Shooter killed his Mother, and then killed the Students and Teachers.
    Then we should sue the Auto manufacturers for all the fatalities on the roads every year. Autos kill more people than firearms every year. I would support a National registry of firearms along with a complete set of fingerprints with each registered firearm, and This would a step in the right direction.

    • October 17, 2016 at 2:11 pm
      B.Right says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 16
      Thumb down 0

      What would a registry and fingerprints accomplish?

      • October 17, 2016 at 2:35 pm
        Ron says:
        Hot debate. What do you think?
        Thumb up 8
        Thumb down 14

        If a crime is committed with a firearm, the registered owner is automatically criminally and civilly liable. It would encourage more responsible gun ownership.

        In addition, it would make it easier to solve crimes and obtain convictions.

        • October 17, 2016 at 2:41 pm
          B.Right says:
          Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 16
          Thumb down 3

          So you think the criminals are just going to voluntarily register their firearms and submit themselves for fingerprints?

          • October 17, 2016 at 3:23 pm
            Ron says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 5
            Thumb down 14

            No. Do you not think gun owners would be more careful storing, securing and keeping track of their firearms if they knew they would be liable if used in a crime? Maybe Nancy Lanza would have done a better job keeping her firearms from her son and we would not be having this conversation.

          • October 17, 2016 at 3:24 pm
            Deplorables says:
            Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 16
            Thumb down 4

            Correct B. The criminal element and the crazies will never register and get fingerprinted when they buy a gun out of a car trunk. Law abiding citizens might, but then they are not the ones going around shooting people.

          • October 17, 2016 at 4:18 pm
            B.Right says:
            Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 16
            Thumb down 5

            What about my kitchen knives, hammers, pens and garden rocks? Those can be used to commit crimes and kill people. Should I also have to register those? Should I also be held criminally liable if someone takes them without my permission and uses them to commit a crime?

          • October 18, 2016 at 9:24 am
            Ron says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 5
            Thumb down 13

            As Bob would say, false equivalency.

            How many of those items were invented solely for the purpose of killing and how many have been used in a mass murder?

          • October 18, 2016 at 9:50 am
            B.Right says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 14
            Thumb down 5

            It’s not a false equivalency, as they are all inanimate objects. The holder of the object decides its purpose. You can use a gun as a decoration, as a bookend, or as a paperweight. You can use it for target practice, for stress relief and for entertainment. You can also use it for self defense.

            I don’t want coercive laws where we have to ask the government’s permission to exercise our rights. If you have to ask, it’s no longer a right, it’s a privilege. And all privileges can be taken away.

          • October 18, 2016 at 11:04 am
            Ron says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 6

            Fair enough. I will concede that you are right and we should not register guns.

            I am guessing that you are also against Voter ID laws, correct?

          • October 18, 2016 at 2:21 pm
            B.Right says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 5
            Thumb down 1

            It depends on how we implement Voter ID, as to whether I’d be for it or against it.

        • October 27, 2016 at 1:24 pm
          Jax Agent says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 3
          Thumb down 1

          Ron, you’re an idiot. Your comments are beyond stupid.

      • October 21, 2016 at 11:02 am
        Deplorables says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 6
        Thumb down 2

        B, basically, the registry and fingerprints would tell the government who the legal gun owners are and where they are so they can go out and confiscate them in a raid. It would certainly make it easier for the criminals and crazies to do their deeds, wouldn’t it?

    • October 18, 2016 at 9:54 am
      Deplorables says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 11
      Thumb down 3

      Fanucci, I agree that Autos kill a lot of people every year. ISIS is famous for using car bombs driven into Iraqi and American positions for maximum effect. They do it all the time. No military grade guns needed.

    • October 19, 2016 at 1:24 pm
      Patticake says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 4
      Thumb down 1

      The tragic event started when his mother started buying and supplying her maniac son with weapons.

  • October 17, 2016 at 1:48 pm
    Anonymous says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 9
    Thumb down 18

    I can understand the families frustration – I too wonder why military grade assault weapons are allowed to be made available to civilians – they only have one purpose – killing people. If the intended use is for military defense/offense purposes and if they are used to kill civilian men, women and children is deemed a ‘misuse’ of the firearm, how could the availability of these types of weapons be deemed appropriate for other than military personnel?? Not a question to be answered here, under these protections for the manufacturers – but certainly one we should consider when we go to the polls.

    • October 17, 2016 at 1:59 pm
      HarrisburgAgent says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 25
      Thumb down 5

      Are you familiar with firearms? The term “military grade” gets thrown around all too often. What you really have is a semi-automatic rifle no different in function that what hunter’s have been using for years. Just because it has a black stock and grip, doesn’t somehow change how the firearm functions. Chasing down the rabbit hole of blaming a manufacturer for a gun death is akin to blaming the food industry for obesity. People make decisions.

    • October 17, 2016 at 2:07 pm
      mrbob says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 16
      Thumb down 4

      Anonymous,

      You should do a little research prior to posting your opinions.

      1. Very few incidents of firearms deaths are caused by the shooter using a long gun and even fewer with a semi automatic detachable magazine weapon such as the AR-15 and it’s many variants. For 2014 the latest year data is available very few of the total homicides in the country were committed with any type of rifle. The ban on “assault weapons” as you incorrectly call them would have at best a negligible impact on homicides.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html?_r=0
      https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls/output.xls

      2. An assault weapon by definition is a weapon regardless of appearance capable of firing more than one bullet per trigger pull such as a M16, M4, Thompson Sub Machine gun or UZI. Any other weapon capable of firing only one bullet per squeeze of the trigger regardless of how scary it may look is simple a semi automatic weapon, not an assault weapon.

  • October 17, 2016 at 1:57 pm
    Anonymous says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 10
    Thumb down 5

    People BEHIND the guns kill… totally agree with you Fanucci!

    • October 18, 2016 at 2:27 pm
      anonymous says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 6
      Thumb down 8

      I believe you were responding to me… I guess my family and I would be counted as one of those ‘very few incidents’; one of my family members was killed by a semi-automatic fire arm shot by a civilian while she was walking down the street on her way home from work. So I am biased. Also, I don’t believe many individuals who purchase semi-automatic, assault or any other type of guns are using them for decoration. I believe in the 2nd amendment, but I am totally against a personally owned firearm that can fire multiple rounds automatically. So sue me.

      • October 19, 2016 at 1:36 pm
        Captain Planet says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 8

        anonymous,
        Some people need to have a big gun to make up for their tiny hands.

        • October 19, 2016 at 3:57 pm
          Patticake says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 8
          Thumb down 1

          Or, in your case, CP, a small brain.

          • October 19, 2016 at 5:04 pm
            Captain Planet says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 6

            Nope, Patti, wrong again. I don’t own a gun. I don’t live my life in fear.

          • October 20, 2016 at 3:14 pm
            Patticake says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 7
            Thumb down 1

            Just more proof of what I said about your brain, CP. You should be fearful for NOT owning a gun in this day and age. How will you protect your family when/if the unimaginable happens? Will you be ready for it? I will be.

          • October 20, 2016 at 5:40 pm
            Deplorables says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 8
            Thumb down 1

            Patticake, the most dangerous places in America are the so called “Gun Free Zones”. Those thugs really like those zones.

          • October 21, 2016 at 9:10 am
            Captain Planet says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 5

            Bakersman,
            You just made my point, thank you.

          • October 21, 2016 at 9:51 am
            UW says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 7

            Patti, studies confirm having a fun in the house is more dangerous than not having one. Living in fear of non-existent bogey men is the main reason to have a gun, but you are in now danger if you do.

          • October 21, 2016 at 10:00 am
            Patticake says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 9
            Thumb down 2

            UW–we aren’t gun owners because we live in fear. We are gun owners because we want the bad guys to fear US.

          • October 21, 2016 at 11:03 am
            Ron says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 8

            Patticake,

            Let’s break down you words:

            1. “You should be fearful for NOT owning a gun in this day and age.” Sounds like you believe owning a gun makes would remove fear?

            2. “How will you protect your family when/if the unimaginable happens? Will you be ready for it? I will be.” Sounds like you are prophesying that there is something to be feared and you want to be prepared.

            Based on your words, you are a gun owner because you live in fear.

            Therefore, if one does not live in fear, as Captain planet and myself have stated, we should not be criticized nor judged for not owning a gun, correct?

        • October 27, 2016 at 1:25 pm
          Jax Agent says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 1

          another stupid comment

      • October 21, 2016 at 9:10 am
        Captain Planet says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 8

        anonymous,
        Some need to have a big gun to make up for their tiny hands.

      • November 4, 2016 at 2:32 pm
        mrbob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        anonymous
        So based on your logic I should push for banning Cars and Alcohol as a drunk driver killed my wives father. It was not the Car or the Alcohol at fault it was the criminal who got behind the wheel. Just like, unfortunately, in your case it was the criminal with the gun.

  • October 17, 2016 at 2:09 pm
    me says:
    Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 8
    Thumb down 21

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    • October 19, 2016 at 1:40 pm
      mrbob says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 12
      Thumb down 3

      But they certainly could with some fertilizer and diesel fuel such as the Oklahoma City Bombing. Bare hands probably not but with many other common ordinary household items certainly possible to kill multiple victims as has happened time and again throughout the world. Bottom line is that bad people do not follow laws and so the only ones impacted by any ban on anything are the honest folks. I happen to own a AR 15 as well as a few other firearms and if I needed to defend my family the one I will grab first is the AR. Statistics have shown that unless you get really lucky under stress and place your shots in an area that will immediately stop the neurological function of the assailant, ie the medulla oblongata, it will typically take 3 or more center mass hits with a handgun to stop the threat. In the typical home invasion there are 3-4 assailants that would require a minimum of 9-12 well placed shots to protect my family. I do not know about you but I would rather have 30 in the magazine in this scenario than 6 shots from a revolver or even 15-17 in a 9mm pistol.

      One final point if you would take the time to read the writings of the founding fathers on the second amendment you will see that they never make mention as to the type of arms.

      “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
      George Mason
      Co-author of the Second Amendment

      “And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …”
      Samuel Adams

      • October 19, 2016 at 2:47 pm
        Bizbee says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 4

        What was the most advanced type of arms available at the time of our founding fathers? The rationale of the time did not contemplate the types of arms that are available now. I’m not so sure, if they were here now, that they wouldn’t have something to say about that.

        • October 19, 2016 at 2:55 pm
          mrbob says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 5
          Thumb down 1

          They might and that is exactly why there is an amendment process that should be used if we as a country wish to restrict certain types of firearms. As the second amendment though is currently written the type of weapon is mute and as such no type of arm should be restricted. That said I am not proposing that we allow citizens to own tanks, fighter aircraft and every other type of military hardware that does not make sense but as to firearms we should amend the amendment if we want to restrict the right to keep and bear arms. To do anything else in my opinion is simply unconstitutional. While we are amending things I also feel that we should take a long hard look at the federal judiciary and life appointments at all levels including the supreme court. Somehow I do not think the founding fathers would have for one moment anticipated that the court would be making law rather than simply interpreting the law.

          • October 20, 2016 at 4:48 pm
            Deplorables says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 6
            Thumb down 1

            Term Limits for the House & Senate? Reduce every department and agency by 50%? Not the military, just the bloated civilian bureaucracy. Energy, gone, Education, gone, EPA down to about 50 employees max and get rid of the thousands of needless regulations they have done. That is a start and have a massive audit by independent auditors and make every department justify their existence.

          • October 21, 2016 at 10:06 am
            UW says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 6

            “They might and that is exactly why there is an amendment process that should be used if we as a country wish to restrict certain types of firearms.”

            True, but the individual right to own arms was a fringe belief until the Supreme Court created new law allowing it recently. Even most conservatives did not argue there was an individual right to own arms.

            “As the second amendment though is currently written the type of weapon is mute and as such no type of arm should be restricted.”

            This is 100% wrong. It specifically says “well-regulated,” meaning Congress does have the right to regulate guns. Furthermore the entire reason behind the amendment and regulation is in order to form a militia, not for individual rights. In that time based on the majority of the Founders’ writings militias were not insane right-wingers running around in the woods hoping for the end of the world, but were closer to the National Guard. The most you should argue is that the states should determine who is and isn’t in their militia and what gun regulations they will enact.

            Hopefully Clinton will appoint justices that will overturn the judicial activism and return us to the original philosophies espoused by the Founders.

          • October 24, 2016 at 2:40 pm
            mrbob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            U/W it state “a well regulated militia” which the founders have on many cases in their writings said is the people. Further many of the founders writings indicate that the reason for the need for a militia is to stop tyranny. I will give you that today is different than the 1700’s but again I state that there is a method to amend the constitution if that is what we as a people want.

            As to availability of guns until prohibition one could purchase a gun via mail order including fully automatic weapons until 1934. Up until 1986 with only as tax stamp any lawful possessor in America could buy a new fully automatic weapon.

            It would appear to me that the court did not make law in this case but simply interpreted what the second amendment and the founders said. Which by the way is their job.

      • October 19, 2016 at 3:01 pm
        Deplorables says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 7
        Thumb down 2

        Watch McGuiver sometime and you will learn of all kinds of household items that can be used to blow something up.

        • October 20, 2016 at 3:54 pm
          confused says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 1

          *MacGyver

  • October 19, 2016 at 2:50 pm
    Bizbee says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 5

    What was the most advanced type of firearm available at the time of our founding fathers? The rationale of the time could not possibly contemplate the types of firearms that are in existence today. If they were here now, I imagine they may have some sage advice in this regard.

    • October 19, 2016 at 3:03 pm
      Deplorables says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 11
      Thumb down 4

      The sage advice of the Founding Fathers would be to get and keep firearms for your family protection. Countries that have disarmed have been enslaved. Need an example? Nazi Germany

      • October 20, 2016 at 9:47 am
        B.Right says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 6
        Thumb down 0

        “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.” Adolf Hitler, 1942

        • October 20, 2016 at 3:16 pm
          Patticake says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 9
          Thumb down 1

          Scary words, indeed. And, if HRC gets into office, we may just as well say good-bye to the 2nd Amendment as we know it.

          • October 20, 2016 at 3:47 pm
            Deplorables says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 8
            Thumb down 1

            Patticake, she said just a few weeks ago that she would take Executive Action if Congress didn’t pass laws she wants on gun control. She is part of the group that fears the people because they can’t control armed citizens. We have had several departments of the Government buy massive amounts of ammunition in the past year or so.

          • October 21, 2016 at 8:40 am
            Ron says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 5

            Patticake,

            Do you know what it takes to repeal and amendment?

            How much would you be willing to wager that the 2nd Amendment will not be repealed or even changed, at all, during President Hillary Clinton’s administration?

          • October 21, 2016 at 9:12 am
            Captain Planet says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 5

            You know what, Patticakes, you’re right. I’m going to get a tank and a nuke. Then, I’ll be ready for anything!

          • October 21, 2016 at 10:02 am
            Patticake says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 6
            Thumb down 1

            CP–you aren’t smart enough to own any type of weapon. You’d shoot yourself in the foot and then blame the gun.

          • October 21, 2016 at 12:11 pm
            Deplorables says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 7
            Thumb down 1

            Patticake, when a liberal like HRC says she will do just reasonable regulation, that is yet another lie.

          • October 21, 2016 at 1:59 pm
            Fanucci says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 0

            Repealing the 2nd Amendment is a long process. HRC would be out of office by the time it would pass. In order to repeal any amendment, you need 75% of the House, 75% of the Senate,and 75% of the states just to repeal or add an amendment. This process would take at least 7-10 years to accomplish.

        • October 21, 2016 at 3:30 pm
          Deplorables says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 5
          Thumb down 1

          B, the liberals think the Constitution is a living document meant to be interpreted how they want and thereby want to pass regulation laws. Once they get their foot in the door, pass more laws until they get rid of the right to bear arms. Obama himself, the alleged Constitutional professor always lamented the language of the Constitution because it limited him on what he could do. It was meant to limit powers of the President and the Congress or they might get out of control, kind of like it is now.

          • October 24, 2016 at 8:49 am
            Ron says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 3

            Agent,

            The Constitution IS a living document. The document states this by allowing amendments.

  • October 20, 2016 at 9:49 am
    B.Right says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 8
    Thumb down 0

    “All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.” Mao Tze Tung, 1938

  • October 20, 2016 at 9:59 am
    B.Right says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 6
    Thumb down 0

    “One man with a gun can control 100 without one.” Lenin

    “The only real power comes out of a long rifle. We don’t let them have ideas. Why would we let them have guns? If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.” Stalin

  • October 20, 2016 at 10:02 am
    B.Right says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 0

    “The measures adopted to restore public order are: First of all, the elimination of the so-called subversive elements. … On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind. This confiscation, which continues with the utmost energy, has given satisfactory results.” Mussolini

  • October 20, 2016 at 10:11 am
    B.Right says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 8
    Thumb down 2

    Though Killary and Hussein want to take our guns, the founding fathers foresaw this.

    “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” Thomas Jefferson

    • October 20, 2016 at 12:12 pm
      Ron says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 5

      B.Right,

      Nice to see that Thomas Jefferson is against all background checks and believes even all mentally ill, non-captured criminals, ex-convicts and radical Islamic terrorists should not be restricted from using arms. Do you agree with him?

      • October 20, 2016 at 1:38 pm
        mrbob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 6
        Thumb down 1

        Ron,
        Big Jump from “The People” to not having reasonable steps in place to protect us from the wrong people having arms. By the way according to Hillary and Barack there is no such thing as a radical Islamic terrorist, so I guess we do not have to worry about that segment of “The People”.

        • October 20, 2016 at 2:15 pm
          Ron says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 3
          Thumb down 6

          mrbob,

          How is it a big step. If we need to take, “shall not be infringed” to mean no regulations on guns, we need to take the term “The People” to mean all people. You cannot pick and choose when and when not to interpret language in the Constitution literally.

          Frankly, what difference does it make whether or not someone uses that terminology? For the record, Hillary Clinton has used this terminology.

          Did you ever take the time to read and understand president Obama’s reason for his approach? What the President of the United States says matters.

          http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/28/politics/obama-radical-islamic-terrorism-cnn-town-hall/

          • October 21, 2016 at 12:08 pm
            Deplorables says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 7
            Thumb down 1

            Ron, as long as we are talking about the record, Hilliary is a serial liar and let 4 brave Americans die in Benghazi and then said, what possible difference does it make now? Both she and Obama didn’t answer the phone at 3:00 AM and no one still knows where the President(your hero) was on that fateful day. Both have no credibility anymore and our enemies and allies no longer respect this country.

          • October 21, 2016 at 12:16 pm
            Ron says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 5

            Agent,

            I already know all of this.

            Just remember when you vote, “None of the above” is an option.

          • October 21, 2016 at 1:09 pm
            Ron says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 6

            Agent,

            Just because I know you prefer Donald Trump’s lies and hate good economic news…

            http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/20/news/economy/manufacturing-boom-donald-trump/index.html?iid=hp-toplead-dom

            This also supports one of my main justifications for the low LPR.

          • October 21, 2016 at 3:25 pm
            Deplorables says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 6
            Thumb down 2

            Ron, I believe I know how to vote and I voted against Obama twice. Too bad you voted for him twice and look at the mess he made. Hopefully, you won’t make the mistake of voting for Hillary this time. Vote for Johnson if you must. That will take votes away from her.

          • October 24, 2016 at 8:47 am
            Ron says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 4

            Agent,

            How come when I say I voted against McCain/Palin and Romney, you interpret that as me voting for President Obama, but it is OK for you to vote against President Obama?

            As I stated previously, I am voting “None of the above” for the office of the President of the United States.

            Regardless how I vote, Hillary Clinton will win. Not because she should, but because Donald Trump is the most disastrous candidate since Michael Dukakis. I am putting the blame squarely on the Republican primary voters for being short-sighted, yet again.

          • October 27, 2016 at 1:29 pm
            Jax Agent says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            not barry Obozo. Barry is a certified narcissist and only cares about himself. Stop drinking the coolaid ron.

      • October 20, 2016 at 1:55 pm
        B.Right says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 6
        Thumb down 1

        Study after study shows that background checks don’t work. A person who is intent on killing will kill.

        • October 20, 2016 at 2:20 pm
          Ron says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 4

          B.Right,

          I noticed you failed to address my whole post. Do you believe that all mentally ill, non-captured criminals, ex-convicts and radical Islamic terrorists should not be restricted from obtaining/using arms?

          • October 20, 2016 at 2:50 pm
            B.Right says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 1

            I’d like for those people to not kill. What I’m saying is that regardless of what laws they pass, the government can’t protect us from someone who is intent on killing.

            I can protect myself and my family though. So I’d like the government to not intrude on my right to do so.

        • October 20, 2016 at 2:23 pm
          Confused says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 2

          “Study after study shows that background checks don’t work.”
          Please provide some links to these studies to support your argument.

          • October 20, 2016 at 2:39 pm
            B.Right says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 0

            Michael Planty and Jennifer Truman, Firearm Violence, 1993-2011, Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), May 2013, p. 13. See also Marianne W. Zawitz, Guns Used in Crime, BJS, July 1995; Caroline Wolf Harlow, Firearm Use by Offenders, BJS, November 2001. In 1985, the Department of Justice reported that only about one in five convicted felons obtained guns through legal channels such as retail stores. (“Few criminals get guns through legal channels,” The Spokesman-Review, October 14, 1985.) ATF, Protecting America: The Effectiveness of the Federal Armed Career Criminal Statute, March 1992, p. 28. Lynn Langton, Firearms Stolen during Household Burglaries and Other Property Crimes 2005-2010, BJS, November 2012, p. 1. ATF, 2012 Summary: Firearms Reported Lost and Stolen, June 17, 2013, p. 2.

          • October 20, 2016 at 3:18 pm
            Patticake says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 5
            Thumb down 0

            BOOM!! (No pun intended, B.Right)

          • October 20, 2016 at 3:58 pm
            confused says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 3

            Thanks B. Right. I’ll look into those.

        • October 20, 2016 at 2:24 pm
          Confused says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 3

          or you could directly answer ron’s question

    • October 20, 2016 at 3:17 pm
      Deplorables says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 5
      Thumb down 1

      B, How about another one from Jefferson?

      The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

      I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing and is necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.

      The question for all concerned citizens is who the tyrant is in our midst. The government is monstrous, leaders are unaccountable and some politicians want to grow it even more to control every aspect of our lives. We are going to find out in the next few weeks what direction this country is going in the near future.

      • October 21, 2016 at 9:53 am
        UW says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 2

        You seen to think we need an armed revolution if Clinton wins.

  • October 20, 2016 at 1:19 pm
    2cents says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 2

    Our Founding Fathers were concerned about government. The people committing mass shootings and killings are not government. I don’t believe we should ban all firearms, however, I truly do not see a need for “assault rifles” for civilians. I also don’t believe in suing the gun manufacturers. While fingerprinting and background checks might stop some of the “bad guys”, they will not stop the mentally unstable who are shooting people. Unfortunately, the lack of support for mental illness is what is more responsible.

  • October 21, 2016 at 9:23 am
    Captain Planet says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 3

    Tanks, rocket launchers, and nukes for everyone! Our founders would want it that way, no doubt.

    • October 21, 2016 at 12:22 pm
      Captain Planet says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 3

      Tanks, rocket launchers, and nukes for all! Our founders would want it that way, no doubt.

      • October 21, 2016 at 1:56 pm
        Captain Planet says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 3

        We love censoring!

        Tanks, rocket launchers, and nukes for all! Our founders would want it that way, no doubt.

      • October 21, 2016 at 4:12 pm
        Captain Planet says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 3

        Ba-blam!

        Tanks, rocket launchers, and nukes for all! Our founders would want it that way, no doubt.

      • October 22, 2016 at 3:45 pm
        Captain Planet says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 3

        Rat-a-tat-tat:

        Tanks, rocket launchers, and nukes for all! Our founders would want it that way, no doubt.

    • October 21, 2016 at 3:40 pm
      Captain Planet says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 3

      Deplore this!

      Tanks, rocket launchers, and nukes for all! Our founders would want it that way, no doubt.

  • October 21, 2016 at 10:39 am
    Captain Planet says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 4

    Guns, guns, what radical fruits. The bigger we buy, the bigger we shoot. The bigger we shoot, the bigger we feel. So, no restrictions, just run like heel!

  • October 21, 2016 at 12:23 pm
    Captain Planet says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 3

    Censorship rules!

    Guns, guns, what radical fruits. The bigger we buy, the bigger we shoot. The bigger we shoot, the bigger we feel. So, no restrictions, just run like heel!

    • October 21, 2016 at 1:56 pm
      Captain Planet says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 3

      Yea censorship!

      Guns, guns, what radical fruits. The bigger we buy, the bigger we shoot. The bigger we shoot, the bigger we feel. So, no restrictions, just run like heel!

  • October 21, 2016 at 3:40 pm
    Captain Planet says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 4

    Censors, get your dislikes out:

    Guns, guns, what radical fruits. The bigger we buy, the bigger we shoot. The bigger we shoot, the bigger we feel. So, no restrictions, just run like heel!

  • October 21, 2016 at 4:11 pm
    Captain Planet says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 4

    Censors unite!

    Guns, guns, what radical fruits. The bigger we buy, the bigger we shoot. The bigger we shoot, the bigger we feel. So, no restrictions, just run like heel!

  • October 27, 2016 at 1:33 pm
    Jax Agent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 1

    What is hard for me to believe is that a ‘shield law’ is even necessary. Why not just common sense ?



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*