CO Dems look to make gun manufacturers liable for damage by AR style weapons

[RugersGR8]

http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/06/colorado-democrats-look-to-make-gun-manufacturers-liable-for-damage-done-by-assault-style-weapons/
Colorado Democrats look to make gun manufacturers liable for damage done by assault-style weapons
1:14 PM 02/06/2013
Greg Campbell

 

[n2sooners]

Hasn't this been tried before and wasn't it shot down by the courts?

 

[Belthos]

It never ceases to amaze me the number of ways that government officials manage to get around inalienable rights, I think it's time to blame our educational system for failing to teach them what the word inalienable means.

Belthos

 

[dutchwrangler]

It never ceases to amaze me the number of ways that government officials manage to get around inalienable rights, I think it's time to blame our educational system for failing to teach them what the word inalienable means.

Belthos

I'm sure they think it has something to do with potential voters.

 

[M2145]

hasn't this been tried before and wasn't it shot down by the courts?

yes sure has.

 

[n2sooners]

What I don't get is how courts protect all other rights in the bill of rights and some rights that aren't in the bill of rights from state and local authorities. They won't even let a city have a cross on it's seal because they equate that to congress making a law establishing a religion, but when it comes to the one amendment that says 'shall not be infringed' they let not only the federal government but state and local governments infringe the hell out of it. If a city or state can have their own laws that infringe on the second amendment, then why can't they establish an official religion or take over the local media or silence critics or search you whenever and wherever they want?

 

[TwoForFlinching]

yes sure has.

I think Bush W. Got legislation passed limiting liability of corporations after Winchester was sued into bankruptcy, forcing a sale to offshore right? Not to mention McD's coffee being too hot, Ford for drunk driving accidents (along with the beer manufacturer)

 

[okiebryan]

Not to mention McD's coffee being too hot

You really should look into the facts of this case. It's not what you were told.

 

[dugby]

You really should look into the facts of this case. It's not what you were told.

That is very interesting reading. Much of it was new to me. However, the original point still stands. As sad as it is that the lady was hurt so badly, she still has only herself to blame. Mcdonalds should be able to sell 180 degree coffee if that is what people want to buy. Many older people liked very much to drink it that way. That was the point of the saucer. I suspect that it improves the experience for them because of the increase of the aroma the higher temperatures produces. Still pretty much in line with what everyone was told.

 

[tweetr]

You really should look into the facts of this case. It's not what you were told.

Nice try, but the facts as presented in that article do not substantially rebut the common understanding. It distills to: the lady sued McDonalds for serving her hot coffee without warning her that hot coffee could burn her. McDonalds did not spill it on her. Only a lawyer (who stands to gain financially by similar lawsuits) could consider that a legitimate lawsuit! I love this line: "No one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results;" Of course some among us are in favor! They are called trial lawyers, who benefit financially by convincing ever more of us to sue ever more of us. No matter who wins the case and who loses the case, the trial lawyers and court system always win. It is a win-win proposition only for them.

The temperature of the coffee when served is a matter entirely between McDonalds and their customers. If you (or she) prefer your coffee served at a lower temperature, why feel free to go elsewhere! Other customers may well prefer their coffee served at a toasty 180 degrees. If enough of McDonalds' customers agree with you, McDonalds will have to change its coffee temperature or risk losing customers. Simple.

I myself brew coffee at 200 degrees, then allow it to cool for five minutes or so before drinking. I don't know the exact temperature when I drink it, but I do know (a) it's hot, and (b) it will burn me if I spill it! Duh. I serve it only to myself, my family, and my guests, of course. If I had to hold coffee to serve to customers I too would study the effect of temperature and time on the quality of the coffee when served and attempt to find the best compromise. If successful I would attract and retain customers. If unsuccessful I would lose customers. Explain to me how trial lawyers improve this simple, natural, and effective arrangement.