^I am also outraged about that - still steaming about it too.

Did you also hear about Thrillary's "25% gun tax?"
I cannot stand most all of Bernie's policies or free stuff mantra, but he does make it quite clear that Vermont having constitutional carry and the most constitutional gun laws (i.e. not many) in the nation has nothing to do with gun violence as a whole - he also voted against the frivolous suits previously, but I'm sure in an election year he will start to retract that message and start to go over to the Bloomberg/Clinton side

Honestly the only thing something like that is doing is driving more sales. When I read that article I contacted my FFL and told them I'll definitely be purchasing an AR-15 this year, most likely the Ruger AR-556 or the Colt Expanse M4


Yes lets allow lawsuits for a criminals actions against a manufacturer of a gun - probably the most idiotic thing I've ever heard - The Sandy Hook families really just want to get paid at any cost don't they? Considering half the Lanza's are dead and most likely bankrupted a month after the murders, I don't know what's more astonishing, the thought of suing a manufacturer of a product that worked as intended and without defect, or the fact that this many years later these parents are so driven to get paid at any cost that all principles are out the window?

Did the Colorado shooter victims also sue the maker of the guns used? Did the Ft Hood shooters victims families also sue the maker of the weapons used? Did the San Bernadino victims families also go on a money hunt from gun makers?

Something is seriously wrong up there in Connecticut, I am seriously getting as far away from this DC-Boston metropolis hell hole of progressive thought very soon.

Worth noting, the judge who ruled this case will proceed is an Obama appointee.

We need to round up all these anti-Constitution leaders/judges, and give them a one-way ticket out of the US. These citizens are nothing more then traitors.

^You mean like that anti-Heller wackbag Merrick Garland - "Boo hoo just give him a chance and hear him out hes so moderate"

Flush him down the toilet, the R's better hold their line on this - There is no obligation to hold hearings on judges in the Constitution. If Barry wanted a vote so bad, he should have nominated another Scalia.

It's perfect poetic justice that Garland oversaw the DC court (Obama appointee AGAIN), and ruled the government has NO time requirement to destroy personal info on background checks for gun purchases. When the background check bill became law it stated "personal info must be destroyed", without any provision regarding time-frame/deadline.

The Senate "has to review" a supreme court nominee, just no definitive deadline the Senate must act.

Suck a bag of d!cks, Garland.

Next time someone is injured in a car accident, they should sue the auto manufacturer. And if they're hit by a drunk driver, they should sue the company who made the alcohol. Because it's the company's fault that someone misused the item which they manufacture, right?

ETA: I'm being sarcastic, in case that isn't clear...

This should have had Obama booted from the Oval Office years ago....

You are being redirected...

When the truth doesn't back up his lies, he fires all the truth tellers.

Obama has fired over 200 intel officials because they were relaying FACTS. Can't have that when you're a bullshitter!

^Quite crystal clear and I've said both already to numerous people - there is NO difference! Gun shop owners are supposed to use judgement as well in addition to a NICS check at point of sale

Adam Lanza STOLE his MOTHER'S gun and she was a lawful owner, do people understand the precedent? He was a CRIMINAL by stealing that gun and committing murder with it.

So a criminal gangbanger shoots down a young boy in a neighborhood, since a CRIMINAL committed murder with a gun, all those victims families are now able to sue the manufacturer of a gun because it was used in a felony?

If you're speeding down a road and kill someone on a hit and run, I guess that victims family should sue the maker of your car?

Yes to suck a bag of dicks to Garland - however I will disagree with your line in bold - there is no deadline that the Senate must act, AND there is no obligation to review any nominee. They do not have to review any nominee at all.

Per verbatim on Article II Section II of the Constitution:
He (the President) shall have the Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Councils, Judges of the supreme Court

"By and With the Advice and Consent" means just that. In this case the Senate's advice was already given - "Don't bother" -

The Framers intended appointments by the Executive Branch to have the check and balance of being approved by the Senate - the point was that the Senate should work TOGETHER with the President to have a nomination which would be consented to appointment.

For far too many decades it has been a President vs Senate situation, where the President does no seek advice from the Senate at all on nominees, just names whoever they want, and throws the ball in the Senate's court. Not how it was intended to work.

I get such a laugh out of the "do your job" crowd. And I just pull Harry Reid up on Youtube from 2005 which is wonderful as he quotes verbatim "The Constitution does not impose an obligation from the Senate to hold hearings or take up a nomination" - he was right back then, but sings a different tune now.

The History of Now, as one of my favorite radio hosts has coined the phrase that the progressives use in their logic....

Good point, no "advise and consent" from Senate went into the Garland Obama pic. The Senate needs to just say no to Garland, and instruct Obama to pic again, with Senate input on selection.

^^Exactly. They don't even have to say no they can just never take up a vote at all on it - if he really cares about appointing a nominee to the Court he should have nominated a Scalia or took their advice which was don't bother in an election year as has been the tradition since the 60's.

Just because someone has been "nominated" its not like there is a queue for the Senate to do something with it - if they don't take up Garland and say the next President nominates someone else the Senate can take up a vote if they like that nominee and no one will ever have heard of Garland by them.

It's funny to hear the spin as if there is some sort of ultimatum to do something with Garland even if a new President made another nominee - he should just go back to whining about DC v Heller and get on with his life