Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Antis trying to get rich again

  1. #1
    Regular Member Rusty Young Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Árida Zona
    Posts
    1,648

    Antis trying to get rich again

    Antis at it again with their frivolous lawsuits and double-speak.

    If they can't get money going after the locked-up Colorado mass-murderer* and his family (they aren't rich, so why place the blame where it is due? ), then maybe they can go after the innocent manufacturers of inanimate objects (because "scary!").

    Since they may not get money out of that case, maybe they can go after the theater that adhered to the antis' advice of having a "Gun-Free" zone and no armed guards (because having armed guards is just a paranoid, "ammosexual" idea, right?).

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/08...vil-trial.html

    Quote Originally Posted by Fox article
    DENVER – Nine months after the Colorado theater shooter was sentenced to life in prison, some victims are returning to the same courtroom in hopes of holding the suburban Denver movie theater accountable for not doing more to prevent his bloody rampage.

    They say Century Theaters should have had armed guards at the packed opening of the Batman film "The Dark Knight Rises" and alarms that would have sounded when James Holmes slipped into the darkened auditorium through an emergency exit and opened fire, killing 12.

    In a civil trial starting Monday in state court, 28 victims' families will argue Cinemark, which owns the theater where the shooting happened, knew the midnight blockbuster would attract at least 1,000 people and should have had guards patrolling the parking lot, where they might have seen Holmes suiting up in head-to-toe body armor in his car. The lawsuit says theater employees failed to check doors, lacked closed-circuit television cameras that would have allowed them to spot trouble and did not intervene as victims lay wounded and dying in the aisles.SNIP...
    The bolding and underlining are my emphasis.


    Let's see:

    1) So do good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns, or not?

    2) I thought calling out for armed guards, security cameras, alarms, etc. was a sign of paranoia?

    3) Why didn't the magical "No Weapons" signs work?

    4) Since Warren v District of Columbia established that public officials (such as LEOs) have no obligation to protect the individual citizen, why would UNARMED employees have that obligation?

    5) Where can I buy "head-to-toe body armor"?


    *Not "shooter", since that is anyone who fires any firearm. The correct term is "mass-murderer", "rapid-pace mass-murderer", etc.
    Last edited by Rusty Young Man; 05-09-2016 at 02:19 PM.
    I carry to defend my loved ones; Desensitizing and educating are secondary & tertiary reasons. Anything else is unintended.

    “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” - Frederic Bastiat

    "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." - Edmund Burke

  2. #2
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Young Man View Post
    Antis at it again with their frivolous lawsuits and double-speak.

    If they can't get money going after the locked-up Colorado mass-murderer* and his family (they aren't rich, so why place the blame where it is due? ), then maybe they can go after the innocent manufacturers of inanimate objects (because "scary!").

    Since they may not get money out of that case, maybe they can go after the theater that adhered to the antis' advice of having a "Gun-Free" zone and no armed guards (because having armed guards is just a paranoid, "ammosexual" idea, right?).

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/08...vil-trial.html


    The bolding and underlining are my emphasis.


    Let's see:

    1) So do good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns, or not?

    2) I thought calling out for armed guards, security cameras, alarms, etc. was a sign of paranoia?

    3) Why didn't the magical "No Weapons" signs work?

    4) Since Warren v District of Columbia established that public officials (such as LEOs) have no obligation to protect the individual citizen, why would UNARMED employees have that obligation?

    5) Where can I buy "head-to-toe body armor"?


    *Not "shooter", since that is anyone who fires any firearm. The correct term is "mass-murderer", "rapid-pace mass-murderer", etc.
    Make the theaters liable for making it an unarmed victim zone. I can go for that.

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •