Word of warning for when Gun Control groups talk grieving family members into suing..

[virginia mountainman]

You could be on the hook for THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS...

From CSGV's facebook page:

This is the most disgusting and outrageous story we've read in a long time. Two parents who lost their daughter in the Aurora massacre are now going to be required to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to the companies that armed James Holmes because of a Colorado law

Well duh.... If someone would have read the law, before filing lawsuits, they would have known that they would end up losing, and writing BIG checks. In this case, for $220,000. Since the Brady Campaign, Bloomberg, and Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, supported this lawsuit in the first place, I wonder if they will help pay for it?

http://blog.thomsonreuters.com/index.php/parents-lost-daughter-mass-shooter-now-owe-220000-suppliers/

[GGJohn]

1. Those 10 families that have filed a lawsuit against Bushmaster in the Sandy Hook

massacre are going to find out that they may very well have to pay legal fees also when their suit is dismissed in the federal court system.

[world wide wally]

2. Isn't idiocracy wonderful?

From now on, I am ONLY taking advice from people with tea bags on their heads
They seem to be the true sages of our time.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

6. tea bags, sages and the law

Several years ago I taught at a tech school that had an attendance policy. This policy said that missing more than 30 hours of instruction would necessitate taking that quarter over. The cost to retake a quarter was discounted by 50%. A small percentage of students treated those 30 hours as vacation rather than personal time. I explained to my class that doing so wasn't wise especially in Winter when making it in may depend on the weather being good enough. Some folks didn't listen. The rule was that if the director was able to make it in, school was open. The director lived within walking distance. Sure enough a late February storm dumped over 2 feet of snow on that Philly suburb and 80% of the class didn't make it in.

When these folks with marginal attendance returned the following day, they wheedled, begged and demanded not to be listed as absent. I explained that it was wrong to ask me to lie for them. Further, if they thought the policy was a problem or unjust, they should have worked to change it.

These folks brought their lawsuits probably aware of the information upon which the judge based his decision. If you believe a law is wrong, work to change it first. Don't ignore the law and then object when things don't go your way.

[Eleanors38]

61. Well, world wide, if someone wants to sue, be advised, and if

some group is pushing you to sue, then that group better be willing to foot the bill come what may. Clearly, these suits are within the realm of political action -- and I have no problem with that -- but the piper will be paid. In these cases, there is ample evidence that you can't stick it to gun manufacturers when someone missuses a weapon, any more than Honda Motors can be sued for damages occurring when some drunken blow hole plows through a street party and kills four people, as happened in Austin in 2014 at SWSX. The driver is being tried for this mass murder.

[Shamash]

3. I believe they filed that suit with help from the Brady Campaign

It will be interesting to see if Brady will a) step up and cover the legal expenses for a lawsuit they knew was doomed to failure from the start, or if they b) simply use these parents and their suit as a "fauxtrage point" for pushing an agenda while simultaneously leaving them holding the bag or c) since it was a defeat, walk away and pretend they were never involved and their support for the suit never happened.

[ileus]

4. A little #commonsense should be used before suing based on emotion.

No company is responsible for the willing misuse of their product.

[world wide wally]

7. But we all know that it's not "misuse" of the product...

It is the "intended" use.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

8. This IS why law enforcement are issued firearms...

...to enable their agents to maim and murder, yes?

Or maybe their agents are special, as we've seen so often in recent news stories.

[world wide wally]

9. Judge for yourself.

I'll just user my brain.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

11. Please continue to do so

Peace, friend.

[world wide wally]

13. We just have to admit when what we believe to be independence becomes insantiy

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

25. I do admit that the...

...criminal use of ANYTHING is the sole responsibility of the criminal. Otherwise, we would have survivors and victim's families suing everyone who engaged in selling an item used in an assault. For items like guns, what would stop them from suing the FBI or any other agency from not preventing sales of weapons to those that SHOULD BE prohibited?

What I believe is that firearms are used regularly by both civilians and law enforcement for protection. This country was founded on that among other ideals. I intend to work to maintain that as the case.

For the record: I do not open carry. I do not concealed carry. I think some individuals who open carry in urban areas are doing so with the intent of provoking a confrontation. I don't approve of that. I also think that those who believe guns carry some inherent evil force that corrupts the minds of their owners are incredibly misguided. I don't belong to the NRA. I don't read their "talking points" nor am I interested in discussing those alleged talking points and whether they may or may not exist. I further have little interest in the Voir dire of various news sources and publishers.

"I've led a school whose faculty and students examine and discuss and debate every aspect of our law and legal system. And what I've learned most is that no one has a monopoly on truth or wisdom. I've learned that we make progress by listening to each other, across every apparent political or ideological divide." - Elana Kagan, Obama appointee.

"No party has a monopoly on wisdom. No democracy works without compromise." - Barack Obama

And, as much as the source remains generally impeachable:

"Freedom is the recognition that no single person, no single authority or government has a monopoly on the truth..." - R. Reagan

I don't hunt nor do I automatically condemn hunters, at least not all of them.
I don't carry nor do I condemn those who lawfully carry.

Lawsuits are not the answer.

[DonP]

15. "I'll just user my brain" (sic) - Apparently they didn't

They were used by an advocacy group that didn't warn them of the potential downside.

Now the groups that encouraged the suit are fading into the woodwork.

But feel free to mail them a check to show your support for their cause.

Or is your support for them in "spirit" only?

[blueridge3210]

10. And, intended use of gasoline it to make automobiles move.

If someone uses a car to run someone over do we sue Exxon, BP or Gulf Oil? The lawyer that filed this suit needs to be on the hook to pay the fees of the defendants.

[world wide wally]

12. The intended use of gasoline is to fuel a car to provide transportation. The intended use of an AK47

is to kill as many enemy as possible as quickly as possible.

[blueridge3210]

14. Holmes didn't use an AK47; most of the dead were a result of his shotgun.

And, one of the companies sued in this ill-advised lawsuit was a company that sold ammunition. Analogy fail.

[world wide wally]

16. gasp! Do you mean he had a shotgun with a 100 bullet magazine?

And you said "one of the companies" was the ammunnition manufacturer sued.
Analogy fail

[blueridge3210]

17. No.

He had a rifle and a shotgun. When his "mall-ninja" magazine for the rifle jammed he switched to the shotgun where he caused the most carnage. Regardless, judicial precedent and Colorado and Federal law prohibit lawsuits against companies that manufacture a legal product and sell them in accordance with the law if those products are later used for a criminal purpose. This lawsuit was foolish given the applicable laws and the attorney should be on the hook for the legal expenses of the defendants.

[world wide wally]

19. Will you at least admit that the 100 clip magazine is what gave him the balls to do it?

[blueridge3210]

21. No.

He's by all appearances clinically insane. The magazine didn't compel to commit his act of horror; neither did the rifle, shotgun or ammunition. Trying to sue the people who manufactured legal products and sold them in compliance with applicable laws is bad practice. Leading the grieving families to believe they can recover damages is, IMHO, legal malpractice.

[Shamash]

23. "Man, I was going to go on a murder spree but the store only had 99 shot clips"

"I guess I'll just be a non-violent productive citizen instead."

Change "99" to the arbitrary value of your choice that separates sane and non-violent gun owners from those with "the balls" to be mass killing spree psychos. It sounds about as silly. Mostly because an arbitrary limit like that is silly.

"If I'll have to reload every 10 shots, that gives the 11th guy a head start and that would really bum me out. I guess I'll stay home instead."

"Only 13 shots in a magazine? That's an unlucky number. I'll save my rage until they raise the limit to 14."

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

33. Were the companies being sued...

...for "balls giving"? By analogy then not only bartenders and bar owners might be held liable for criminal vehicular homicides due to alcohol but also the gas station attendant who filled the drunk's tank and cleaned his windshield.

[Shamash]

18. Wally...

If I go to the Olympics and see something like a rapid-fire pistol event, I am pretty sure I am seeing semi-auto, clip-fed firearms used as designed, and no one is getting killed. Since more than 99.9% of all gun owners will never commit a gun-related crime, it would seem on its face that gun and ammunition manufacturers can assume that the civilian buyers of their products are not intending to use them to harm another human being. Ergo, the "intended use" for civilian-owned guns is not killing people and misuse (i.e. murder) is already a very serious crime whose laws are vigorously enforced. Unless you are cop shooting someone in the back, but that's a separate topic...

Misuse is the fault of the misuser, not the manufacturer. This is a legal principle that holds across the board, despite how much you want to make an exception for this one particular item. That's why even people like Bernie Sanders voted against allowing gun manufacturers to be held liable for shootings.

Liberalism is not an ala carte philosophy. If you cannot hold a belief across the board, you should not hold it at all.

[world wide wally]

20. Do they have those events in the park where kids are playing?

[Shamash]

22. How is that in any way relevant to -manufacturer- liability?

But to answer your question anyway, an Olympic venue where shooting events were held (London 2012):

• did not prohibit children from watching (and I think their presence is more important than whether or not they were "playing&quot
• did not have a bulletproof screen for the spectators
• had fabric walls and roof that would not have slowed down any shots fired in the wrong direction



And wouldn't you know it, not a single person was even winged. You'd think the world's best shooters wouldn't have missed that many times, given the "intended purpose" of their weapons.

Now that we have addressed your silly and off-topic diversion, would you like to get back to working on an intelligent response to my or any of the numerous criticisms of your position? Or was that not even on your agenda for today?

P.S. Children "playing in the park" in Switzerland, where shooting classes are part of a normal education...

[world wide wally]

30. I don't see any swing sets or slides in this park

[DonP]

24. "Do they have those events in the park where kids are playing?" - Why yes, yes they do

Come to Chicago and wander through any park in Englewood, Chatham or many of the other neighborhood parks on the West and South sides.

But conflating law abiding people with gang members or insane people as if there's no difference, is as stupid as conflating the average gun control supporter with the Bloomberg sponsored "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" gun control supporters, the dozen or so now in prison for an assortment of disgusting crimes.

[world wide wally]

29. I am just so glad we are safe from violent crime here in America compared to any other country

because our solution is to just to have more guns to protect us.
I feel safer for my daughters too knowing there are tons of Wyatt Earps out there to protect them from bad guys.
Gives me a warm fuzzzy feeling inside, y'know

You guys win. I was wrong. We need more guns EVERYWHERE!

[blueridge3210]

31. Nice straw man. (nt)

[DonP]

34. Nobody is going to protect your daughters, that's your job - just trust the police

Concealed carry permit holders are not there to protect anyone but themselves and their immediate family. They're not auxilliary police.

As far as protecting your family members, just keep trusting the police. After all you're obviously much smarter than we are. Beyond that you're on your own.

So with no firearms in your home you must feel safe all the time.

Trust the police - good luck with that.

[world wide wally]

43. As a matter of fact, my daughters are almost fully grown now and they are healthy, happy and

rational.
I grew up on the south side of Chicago and I am healthy and happy and now living in Colorado.
Although I have gone hunting and prefer meat that is taken through hunting as opposed to buying it in the grocery store, I have never owned a gun.
And yet, we survive

Figure that


And you can "trust the police' all you want.. good luck with that. I hope you're not black.

[Shamash]

49. Healthy, happy and rational daughters

I'm guessing this means Wally was absent for most of their upbringing...

And I note with some amusement that Wally's self-description lacks the "rational" part. So Wally, I'm glad you're healthy and happy at least. Too bad about that last part, though.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

35. I understand and accept your frustration. Feel entirely free not to respond.

Do you know anything about Wyatt Earp? He was essentially a felon. Were he engaging in analogous activities today, he wouldn't be allowed to buy or own a gun much less be a marshal. His famous gunfight, which included his brothers and Doc Holliday, occurred in the course of them enforcing gun-control within town limits. His campaign against the outlaw Cowboy gang was mostly, IMHO, him seeking vengeance.

FYI: Civilians have a better record of not shooting the good guys than cops do.

[world wide wally]

42. Wyatt Earp was just an expression…

But when it comes to history. Wyatt Earp represents gunplay.
When he "cleaned up" Dodge City…. he did it by confiscating guns because things were out of control. Kind of like today.

I have never suggested we confiscate guns and I love hunting. However, there is a point of rationality that has been lost in this country.
The sad part is… you know exactly what I mean but you have such a hardon for guns that you won't admit it.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

48. Your efforts to justify your personal prejudices are noted

I may have an idea of what you mean but no understanding whatever of why you have such an obtuse opinion.

See #32: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172165835#post32

Such a juvenile deflection; grow up.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

54. Oh by the way...

...control is a myth.

The war on drugs made them unavailable... but only if you obey the law.
Prohibition made alcohol unavailable... but only to those who obeyed the law.
Speed limits work to keep people from speeding... but those who don't care, still speed.

The only real control is self-control.

"But when you disarm them, you at once offend them by showing that you distrust them, either for cowardice or for want of loyalty, and either of these opinions breeds hatred against you." - Niccol Machiavelli

This is plain in the reactions of many of 80-100 million gun owners in the US against further legislation. When the government demonstrates distrust of the people, the people respond with hatred and cooperate less and less.

Twenty five years ago, when I began following control/rights politics, Vermont was the only state where CC was unregulated to the point of not requiring a permit, investigation, testing or formal law enforcement process. Today there are four other states like Vermont.

[world wide wally]

44. I grew up on the south side of Chicago and hung out at the park constantly

The Brighton Park area to be exact.
We never had guns because they were against the law and amazingly nobody ever got shot.
I went to Kelly HS and we played against Englewood in sports.
Since the relaxation of gun laws, it has turned into what you see today.
You know this is ridiculous and the NRA has you convinced that it is necessary. Sad.
When I want someone with a tea bag on their head interpreting my Constitutional rights, please turn me in for mental help.
Thanks

[hack89]

45. Chicago was much more violent 20 years ago

as was most of the country. All violent crime including gun violence has been steadily falling for 20 years - even in Chicago.

[blueridge3210]

46. So, now Democrats that support the 2nd Amendment

are Teabaggers. Classy.

[Shamash]

50. Blind, deaf and...mute

We never had guns because they were against the law and amazingly nobody ever got shot.

According to the Chicago Department of Health, the firearm death rate per capita in Brighton Park from 2005 to 2009 (before the relaxation of gun laws there) was 10.1 per 100,000, a rate that is on par with the United States as a whole (which had less strict gun laws). Interestingly, there is no single year in the past 50 years in which there were no firearm homicides in Brighton Park. So I'm unsure at this point whether Wally is really old or just missed hearing about these shootings because he is blind, deaf and only became literate enough to Braille-read the news after moving to Colorado.

Since the relaxation of gun laws, it has turned into what you see today.

Homicides in Chicago are at a 50-year low. That is the correlation you were trying to make, right?

[DonP]

55. Ummmm, the "relaxation of gun laws" in Chicago didn't happen until 2013

Chicago's ban on handguns was intact until then.

And FWIW, the NRA had nothing to do with it. Try and get your boogeyman straight before you decide who the "evildoers" are.

The Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association were the people that sued the state and won.

The violence and murders were actually worse before the change in the laws. The last few years have actually seen a drop in the violent crime numbers and we're all still waiting for the violence from all the legal concealed carry holders in Cook County. Any minute now ...

[Eleanors38]

64. The McDonald decision overturning Chicago's gun prohibition laws was initiated

by McDonald and argued by attorneys from the Cato Institute who fully took any financial risk no matter the outcome, the NRA was left as an also-ran yelling "me too!" from the sidelines. The NRA is primarily a legislative work enter lobby, and didn't want to take the chance on a court case. Regardless of what one may think about Cato, that was the group who took the lead and protected its client from financial consequences.

[ileus]

36. Firearms are meant to save/protect lives...not take life.

[world wide wally]

40. uh huh

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

26. Arent guns designed and built to kill?

how is killing someone with a weapon designed to kill, misuse?

[blueridge3210]

27. No.

Firearms are designed to expel a projectile at high velocity with some degree of accuracy. What happens depends on where the firearm is aimed. Sometimes a paper or clay target is the casualty. Sometimes it is a game animal. Sometimes criminals misuse firearms. The manufacturer is not responsible for the criminal misuse of the product that is legal to manufacture and sold in compliance with applicable laws.

[world wide wally]

41. A gun is a weapon… A weapon is designed for warfare…

I didn't realize that children in a park constituted warfare.

[blueridge3210]

47. Nice deflection.

The OP is about a misguided lawsuit against firearm manufacturers and ammunition suppliers in violation of the law. The poster to whom I replied attempted to insinuate that the only purpose for a firearm is to kill someone and therefore was not "misused". This error was corrected. Be careful dancing in the blood of the deceased; you might slip and fall.

[beevul]

28. Civilian legal weapons are intended to be used LEGALLY.

Any use that isn't legal, is by definition, misuse.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

32. A gun is designed for a purpose which can neither be...

...characterized as inherently good nor inherently evil. This basic fact is the very reason that a shooter is fully and completely culpable for his actions. Trying to suggest otherwise is to also mitigate and/or justify the actions of murders who have premeditated their crime and used a gun in its execution.

At some point we all need to just grow the f%&k up and be held accountable. Shooting someone who's trying to hurt you or another innocent isn't a crime. Shooting your rape victim to prevent them from identifying you is.

There are those who shouldn't try to carry and, apart from background checks and carry permit tests and screenings, I dearly hope they and those around them work hard to assess themselves and conclude correctly.

[ileus]

37. No they're designed and marketed as life saving devices.

Of course some are designed for hunting, some for competition, some for collecting, and still others for just plain old family fun.


But none are designed to murder.

[VScott]

5. 'We're coming after you.'

'We're putting them on notice,' Lonnie Phillips said at a news conference in Denver. 'We're coming after you.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2758232/Theater-shooting-victims-parents-sue-ammo-seller.html

[virginia mountainman]

39. Now Lonnie Phillips is saying:

We're putting them on notice, We're coming after you............to hand you this large check.......

[stone space]

57. Attacking gun victims by name, huh?

Now Lonnie Phillips is saying:

We're putting them on notice, We're coming after you............to hand you this large check.......

Why is this kind of mean spirited bullshit directed towards gun victims in shooting massacres even allowed here on DU?

When did gun victims from shooting massacres become the enemy of the Democratic Party, to be subjected to ridicule and derision?

[DonP]

60. Wow, You need to let Skinner know about this place right away!

Or has he appointed you the official patrol cop for DU and deciding what should be allowed?

Reading Comprehension. Even Calculuz instructors need it. Try to stay on point and relevant to the discussion.

This thread is about how those gun control organizations, that you claim to support, (but not like with actual money or anything), have scammed these families into now owing hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal bills.

When you lose a case like this, the loser pays. Good philosophy IMHO. They were talked into suing by Brady, Bloomberg et. al., and they lost. Nothing from those organizations yet on picking up all or part of the tab.

But ... since you're not mean spirited like we all are ... feel free to bundle "all" the DU gun control supporter's donations to help these families out.

Or are you just another gun control keyboard warrior that just talks a good game online?

[stone space]

62. The post you are defending attacked Lonnie Phillips by name.

How did Lonnie Phillips become the enemy of the Democratic Party?

[DonP]

65. You mean Lonnie Philips, the full time employee of the Brady Group, that Lonnie Philips?

How dare anyone question the motivation and wisdom of someone that's an employee of another failing gun control group!

The very nerve of some people.

Now, I'll ask you again, how much will you and your sympathetic gun control friends personally be donating to help this family?

Or is this another one of those "moral support" only things?

[friendly_iconoclast]

67. "How did Lonnie Phillips become the enemy of the Democratic Party?"

What on Earth are you talking about?

[virginia mountainman]

68. Attacking by name?! LOL!!!!!!That is poutrageous!!

Evidently you have not read much in this thread...

I'm Just repeating what he said...for the most part!!

'We're putting them on notice,' Lonnie Phillips said at a news conference in Denver. 'We're coming after you.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2758232/Theater-shooting-victims-parents-sue-ammo-seller.html#ixzz3YXeGUZP5
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[stone space]

56. It's fun to attack gun victims.

What exactly do you find funny here?

[VScott]

58. In what way are they "victims"?

If they're "victims" of anything, it's they're being manipulated by their lawyers and
the charlatans at the Brady Campaign.

Even then, once they enter the political and social arena of gun control, the gloves come off
and they're fair game.

[stone space]

63. Their daughter was murdered in a gun massacre.

In what way are they "victims"?

[friendly_iconoclast]

66. How much will *you* be contributing towards the Philipses legal debts?

[VScott]

75. Uhmmm... no.

Their daughter was the victim, not the parents.

[stone space]

77. Thery are gun victims.

Uhmmm... no.

Their daughter was the victim, not the parents.

Your love of guns has blinded you to the reality of how your precious guns victimize innocent people.

Now, you've gone to total denial.

You think that it is the victims of guns who need to be attacked, as the gloves come off.

[virginia mountainman]

69. Being a victim, does not.........

Give you the right to make other people victims...

[stone space]

70. Jennifer Ghawi's parents are victimizing you?

Being a victim, does not.........Give you the right to make other people victims...

Seriously???

[virginia mountainman]

71. By sueing innocent people..

They are victimising them..


Thus now they get too write a check for over $220,000...

By working to restrict MY gun rights by being part of the Brady Campaign, they are victimising the rest of us.

[stone space]

72. You poor little baby!

By working to restrict MY gun rights by being part of the Brady Campaign, they are victimising the rest of us.

Gun victims are so evil!

Thus now they get too write a check for over $220,000...

Yeah, let's bankrupt all gun victims.

That'll teach them not to get so uppity whenever one of their family members gets shot.

[virginia mountainman]

73. They chose to bankrupt themselves..

The law is the law, why could their lawyers not read it and understand it??

But Brady's lawyers have a long track record of loosing, and doing stupid stuff...

Two weeks ago...

http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/attorney-breach-stalls-milwaukee-officers-gun-store-lawsuit-b99481327z1-299762131.html

Milwaukee County Judge Jeffrey Conen on Monday allowed attorneys Jonathan Lowy and Alla Lefkowitz of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence to withdraw from the case. They were representing Norberg and Kunisch along with local attorney Patrick Dunphy.

Conen ordered Brady to pay $800 to Milwaukee County, the cost of paying 100 jurors who were called for jury selection for half a day. It was an extra large pool, more than double what judges typically summon.

The Brady attorneys agreed to leave the case after it was disclosed that the organization posted information over the weekend that Conen had ruled inadmissible.

[stone space]

79. Maybe they love their daughter.

They chose to bankrupt themselves..

Of course, to some here, love is reason enough to attack gun victims.

[beevul]

84. Suing people that made the guns and ammo wont bring their daughter back.

Neither will foisting ridiculous laws on the people who didn't do it, and aren't the problem.

[blueridge3210]

74. "Gun victims are so evil! "

No, politically motivated gun control organizations and attention seeking lawyers that file ill advised lawsuits which expose their clients to financial liability are evil. The family members of the deceased, IMHO, are also victims here. The lawyer(s) who filed this lawsuit that was barred by federal law should pay the defendant's legal expenses; as well as the Brady.Org.

[NaturalHigh]

38. I feel sorry for the families.

They were probably talked into the lawsuit by lawyers and anti-gun crusaders. Those are the people who should have to pay the legal bills.

[samsingh]

51. the tragedy of losing their daughter to gun violence probaby affected their decision

imagine - I know it's difficult to have empathy.

more guns for everyone! (sarcasm)

[blueridge3210]

53. I empathize with the families.

The attorneys and/or gun control orgs that convinced them to sign on to this ill advised lawsuit are despicable and should pay the defendants legal expenses.

[aikoaiko]

52. Grieving parents can be talked into and do unwise things.

Hopefully Gabby, Brady or Bloomberg will step up.

[beevul]

59. About those "talked into suing" folks...Some interesting disclosure.

Since they're brady "employees", presumably the paid kind, one would think such a disclosure would be important, assuming one had any interest in remaining ethical.


On edit: What kind of sad twisted testament to the goodness of the brady campaign it would be, if they let their own employees eat the legal bill.

[VScott]

76. It's not like they were dragged into it kicking and screaming.

They were anti 2nd amendment activists before the lawsuit...
They were anti 2nd amendment activists during the lawsuit...
They'll remain anti 2nd amendment activists after the lawsuit.

How it most likely went down is that yet another anti-gun brainiac came up with some 'creative', novel way
of circumventing Federal (and state), law and convinced the Phillips' that it was their best shot.

(The high profile lawyer representing the Sandy Hook plaintiffs in their lawsuit against Remington/Bushmaster
is trying to pull the same rabbit out of his ass).


Well, it wasn't, so now they have to pay the fuck up.

Personally, I don't care who pays the defendants, as long as someone does (the Phillips', The Brady's, Bloomburg, etc),
and it's every last cent owed.

I really hope none of the defendants back down or ease off on any monies owed.
It just sends out the wrong message

[stone space]

78. Do you think they vounteered their daughter for slaughter?

It's not like they were dragged into it kicking and screaming.

Of course they were dragged into it kicking and screaming.

Many gun victims are.

You just seem to just get your kicks from attacking gun victims.

[DonP]

80. And you my friend are, as my Brit friends say, as thick as two planks

Either you're being purposely obtuse or you really are so blinded by a misplaced ideology that you refuse to follow the actual conversation and just want to shout something so people will pay attention to you.

They weren't dragged "kicking and screaming" into a lawsuit with no chance of success by some sleazy lawyers.

They consciously chose to follow their employer's (Brady Group) lead and now may get stuck with a 6 figure legal bill for the gun industry lawyers.

But again, as a gun control "activist", how much will you be mailing to them to help with those bills?

[friendly_iconoclast]

81. The attempted threadjacking by that one has been clumsy and obvious

I have no doubt whatsoever that if our interlocutor was the subject of a
SLAPP lawsuit, and prevailed...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation

...they would be vigorously seeking to recoup their legal expenses. Hypocrisy is
part and parcel of most gun control advocacy these days.

[Lurks Often]

82. How much are you going to donate to help the Philip's with their legal expenses?

Since the average university math teacher makes $75,000 a year http://work.chron.com/salary-mathematics-professor-6284.html you should be able to spare a $1,000 or so to help them with their legal expenses.

Or are you all talk?

[friendly_iconoclast]

83. That question has been asked several times- and studiously ignored...

[VScott]

85. Dude...

ahh never mind ... forget about it