RE: Vegas lawsuits...there a'com'n.

RE: Vegas lawsuits...there a'com'n. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

JVoV -> RE: Vegas lawsuits...there a'com'n. (10/12/2017 5:33:34 PM)
As the President, I'm not sure that the Second Amendment applies to Trump anymore, since it's a right for 'the people', not the government.

BamaD -> RE: Vegas lawsuits...there a'com'n. (10/12/2017 5:35:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV As the President, I'm not sure that the Second Amendment applies to Trump anymore, since it's a right for 'the people', not the government. So government officials don't have constitutional rights.

Drakvampire -> RE: Vegas lawsuits...there a'com'n. (10/12/2017 5:40:35 PM)
you mist fight the women off hewre

JVoV -> RE: Vegas lawsuits...there a'com'n. (10/12/2017 5:42:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV As the President, I'm not sure that the Second Amendment applies to Trump anymore, since it's a right for 'the people', not the government. So government officials don't have constitutional rights. There's a major difference, because government officials have the power to act AS THE GOVERNMENT. Obviously, they can still own guns, but again, I'm not sure that the Bill of Rights applies to them, while they're acting in an official capacity.

BamaD -> RE: Vegas lawsuits...there a'com'n. (10/12/2017 5:47:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV As the President, I'm not sure that the Second Amendment applies to Trump anymore, since it's a right for 'the people', not the government. So government officials don't have constitutional rights. There's a major difference, because government officials have the power to act AS THE GOVERNMENT. Obviously, they can still own guns, but again, I'm not sure that the Bill of Rights applies to them, while they're acting in an official capacity. No the Constitution applies to all citizens. As government officials it prohibits them from ignoring it.

JVoV -> RE: Vegas lawsuits...there a'com'n. (10/12/2017 5:53:25 PM)
Yet, the President can't exactly serve in a militia to overthrow the government, can he?

Drakvampire -> RE: Vegas lawsuits...there a'com'n. (10/12/2017 5:56:01 PM)
dodge the draft 4 times

BamaD -> RE: Vegas lawsuits...there a'com'n. (10/12/2017 5:57:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV Yet, the President can't exactly serve in a militia to overthrow the government, can he? He is CnC and to say a president can't overthrow the government if it becomes tyrannical he is obligated by the constitution not to make it tyrannical.

Drakvampire -> RE: Vegas lawsuits...there a'com'n. (10/12/2017 5:59:45 PM)
lied10000 times?and is a oedo

JVoV -> RE: Vegas lawsuits...there a'com'n. (10/12/2017 6:00:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV Yet, the President can't exactly serve in a militia to overthrow the government, can he? He is CnC and to say a president can't overthrow the government if it becomes tyrannical he is obligated by the constitution not to make it tyrannical. But he's also the one most likely to be the tyrant needing to be overthrown. (Any President, not specifically Trump)

BamaD -> RE: Vegas lawsuits...there a'com'n. (10/12/2017 6:05:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV Yet, the President can't exactly serve in a militia to overthrow the government, can he? He is CnC and to say a president can't overthrow the government if it becomes tyrannical he is obligated by the constitution not to make it tyrannical. But he's also the one most likely to be the tyrant needing to be overthrown. (Any President, not specifically Trump) He is warned. At least he didn't want to fundamentally change America.

Drakvampire -> RE: Vegas lawsuits...there a'com'n. (10/12/2017 6:51:56 PM)
I thought the Present lied a few thousand times you mental enabling sad fuk of poverty. You are very sick and thick and a cheating lying fuck diseases like almost on here Feel free to name names? There are no women on here only degree of sickness like you

Drakvampire -> RE: Vegas lawsuits...there a'com'n. (10/12/2017 6:53:13 PM)
was trump and his 1000s of lies warned by you fag shit shot He must tremble

LadyPact -> RE: Vegas lawsuits...there a'com'n. (10/12/2017 11:42:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV Why wouldn't any of the Vegas victims be able to sue the estate of the shooter? That doesn't quite make sense. This was my thought at well. If we're talking about civil suits, it seems to me this would be the most logical recourse. A civil suit only needs preponderance of evidence. Not 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt,' such as criminal conviction. As we sit now, Paddock is responsible, so people can sue the estate for damages. The rest? I don't see it going. The girlfriend, so far, can't be considered a responsible party. Unless there is a link to her being shown as culpable in the planning or the execution of the event, isn't liable. It's not enough that she had knowledge of Paddock's weapons. If it can't be shown that she knew what he would DO with them, she's relieved of being a 'responsible party'. Even in civil suits, there has to be preponderance of evidence. As far as the hotel and the event producer, we're crossing into 'extreme measures' territory. The whole "Paddock's movements/activities should have been monitored" thing doesn't work when compared to (heaven knows) how many guests have cycled through the hotel. There was no reasonable standard for the hotel to believe that any random guest would open fire on a crowd. It was not the responsibility of the Mandalay Bay to have any greater investigation of it's guests than any other resort in the entire world. It's wasn't reasonable for the hotel to "track" their guests, how many bags went to the room, have metal detectors set up for people checking in, or any other thing. To date, no civil suit has been successful in relation to a weapon as opposed to what people DO with a weapon. This has been tried several times over the years to no avail.

heavyblinker -> RE: Vegas lawsuits...there a'com'n. (10/13/2017 4:36:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV Why wouldn't any of the Vegas victims be able to sue the estate of the shooter? That doesn't quite make sense. Why would you punish his family for what he did? The only target that makes sense here are the people who enabled the shooter, not people who were unfortunate enough to be related to him.

Wayward5oul -> RE: Vegas lawsuits...there a'com'n. (10/13/2017 5:31:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV Why wouldn't any of the Vegas victims be able to sue the estate of the shooter? That doesn't quite make sense. Why would you punish his family for what he did? The only target that makes sense here are the people who enabled the shooter, not people who were unfortunate enough to be related to him. when he did what he did the estate was his. It's not punishing his family it's using his earnings not theirs.

heavyblinker -> RE: Vegas lawsuits...there a'com'n. (10/13/2017 5:36:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV Why wouldn't any of the Vegas victims be able to sue the estate of the shooter? That doesn't quite make sense. Why would you punish his family for what he did? The only target that makes sense here are the people who enabled the shooter, not people who were unfortunate enough to be related to him. when he did what he did the estate was his. It's not punishing his family it's using his earnings not theirs. Yeah, but they're going to get it. Is this about profiting from the death of a loved one, getting revenge on a dead guy or trying to prevent it from happening again? For two of those options, the gun lovers/defenders/promoters make the most obvious targets-- deeper pockets, and are actually partially responsible for what happened. And hurting people who are no longer alive by depriving their loved ones of an inheritance, even though they are entirely innocent, is a total scumbag move.

MrRodgers -> RE: Vegas lawsuits...there a'com'n. (10/13/2017 7:19:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV Why wouldn't any of the Vegas victims be able to sue the estate of the shooter? That doesn't quite make sense. This was my thought at well. If we're talking about civil suits, it seems to me this would be the most logical recourse. A civil suit only needs preponderance of evidence. Not 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt,' such as criminal conviction. As we sit now, Paddock is responsible, so people can sue the estate for damages. The rest? I don't see it going. The girlfriend, so far, can't be considered a responsible party. Unless there is a link to her being shown as culpable in the planning or the execution of the event, isn't liable. It's not enough that she had knowledge of Paddock's weapons. If it can't be shown that she knew what he would DO with them, she's relieved of being a 'responsible party'. Even in civil suits, there has to be preponderance of evidence. As far as the hotel and the event producer, we're crossing into 'extreme measures' territory. The whole "Paddock's movements/activities should have been monitored" thing doesn't work when compared to (heaven knows) how many guests have cycled through the hotel. There was no reasonable standard for the hotel to believe that any random guest would open fire on a crowd. It was not the responsibility of the Mandalay Bay to have any greater investigation of it's guests than any other resort in the entire world. It's wasn't reasonable for the hotel to "track" their guests, how many bags went to the room, have metal detectors set up for people checking in, or any other thing. To date, no civil suit has been successful in relation to a weapon as opposed to what people DO with a weapon. This has been tried several times over the years to no avail. Ok, I thought they were married which prompted my comment that wifey could end up broke. Yes, his estate could end up broke. (bankrupt)

MrRodgers -> RE: Vegas lawsuits...there a'com'n. (10/13/2017 7:23:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV Why wouldn't any of the Vegas victims be able to sue the estate of the shooter? That doesn't quite make sense. Why would you punish his family for what he did? The only target that makes sense here are the people who enabled the shooter, not people who were unfortunate enough to be related to him. when he did what he did the estate was his. It's not punishing his family it's using his earnings not theirs. Yeah, but they're going to get it. Is this about profiting from the death of a loved one, getting revenge on a dead guy or trying to prevent it from happening again? For two of those options, the gun lovers/defenders/promoters make the most obvious targets-- deeper pockets, and are actually partially responsible for what happened. And hurting people who are no longer alive by depriving their loved ones of an inheritance, even though they are entirely innocent, is a total scumbag move. This is not just revenge. The plaintiff in question suffered life-changing injuries, can and has a right to sue for her damages as do all victims. That is civil law in the west.

heavyblinker -> RE: Vegas lawsuits...there a'com'n. (10/13/2017 8:08:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers This is not just revenge. The plaintiff in question suffered life-changing injuries, can and has a right to sue for her damages as do all victims. That is civil law in the west. I didn't say it wasn't the law.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875