"Supreme Court lets Sandy Hook shooting lawsuits go forward"
- Thread starter archives
- Start date
evince
Truthmatters
fox and putin lies
I'm still hoping you grow a set and start personally trying to take away the guns you say people shouldn't own. I doubt you ever will. You're no different that Nomad that claimed what he'd do after challenging me to come to Orlando. When I accepted, that fucking coward went into hiding.
How many of those AR-15s have grown arms/legs, walked to where they fired, and pulled their own trigger? Since the answer is none, they are no more of a killing machine than a laptop computer.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
to be honest, the OP is very confused.....can't tell if they are referring to the Connecticut SC or the USSC......
I want YOU to try rather than running your dick sucker about what someone else should do. Typical coward that says something should be done then expects someone else to do it for her.
Not a single one is a killing machine. Inanimate objects don't fit that description.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
if this was the USSC there is no where to appeal it to......
So repeating your error ovwr again makes it correct? This ain't talk radio
Read, I know it is tough for you, but this is the very law the SCOTUS ruled doesn't apply
Want to try for three swings and misses in a row?
evince
Truthmatters
because you cant fucking read and comprehend
the SCOTUS ( the highest court in the USA)
has basically said the NC scotus decision can stand
That the sandyhook families can sue the Gun industry for advertising their weapons to the Killers
their adverts are part opf the case
they clearly tout the killability they offer the purchaser
they market to killers
And out the door goes rational and critical thinking and logic and reasoning when one take up a debate with a right winger, which is why I avoid responding to most of the posts. Their very existence is why the USA is going in the complete wrong direction and why I advocate for a severing of ties to these knuckle-draggers. If you have to explain how a weapon designed for quick massive killing which has brought about the untimely death of little children in their classroom is different from an automobile or alcohol, you know you are arguing with a mouth-breather.
Last edited:
As I told you before, I don't give a rat's ass what toys you own, not our fault you are afraid some kid in a hoodie may walk down your street, and I don't have to take your toys away, if it came to that we have police officers in this country who enforce the law, I wouldn't waste my time on you nor anyone else like you, not worth the effort
The SCOTUS also decided Brown vs. Board of Education (Desegregation) , Obergefell vs. Hodges (Faggot marriages), and National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (Obamacare). We all know how fucked up those decisions were.
As I've told you before, some thug is a hoodie doesn't scare me. That's evident by the fact that none have ever had the guts to do what Trayvon was stupid enough to do.
The "I don't have to" is the typical excuse from a goddamn coward that knows he's not man enough to do so. Whatever makes you feel better.
I wasn't either so I read both articles. Neither was really clear on which one it was, but the one referred to the Conn. SC.