I really don't see much, if any thing, coming out of this. Other than partisan political performance theater. That I'll ignore.

44

First step, admit you have a problem. Watching TV news. Just stop.

I quit watching TV news probably 20 years ago. I just can't stand some talking head preaching at me.

I have never been a Buffoon fan dating back decades before he became a political character. That said, this is gross beyond words. The g*d d**n m***********g president of the US is f*****g suing the f******g he purportedly leads for f*****g billions! Did you see that? Did you connect to that? The f*****g president sued his government. G** D**n. I don't know any more disgusting words for this.

I cannot imagine how any person can support this.

3

Binary dumb***k.

Just a couple of instances I found in my search.

Thanks for reiterating my point. A few random cases do not a mass problem make.

If it is a mass problem the company would be sued into oblivion. Neither your nor my google searches support that conclusion. Ergo the reference to multiple youtube videos is nothing more than anecdotes that apparently don't stand up to judicial scrutiny.

Again, massive problem equals massive litigation. That ain't happnin'. Conclusion, accidental discharge ain't a mass problem.

D**n. Blew that one. Try again; "... is an express exclusion from gun manufacturer immunity ... for injuries.

The gun with a notorious reputation with many videos showing the gun spontaneously discharging in holsters with hands nowhere near it.

If the "accidental" discharge was as prevalent as you wish to portray it then the company would have been sued out of existence years ago. After all, products liability is an express exclusion from gun manufacturer liability for gun injuries.

59 and 60

Throwing out one paragraph quotes without context is meaningless.

Have you Shepardized those cases?

EtAl whats the difference between a "whole number of persons" and a "number of persons"? Is this in regards to the slavery ratios?

Read the article. The apportionment clause of the Fourteenth Amendment had a specific purpose. Citizenship vs. person was debated. Person was chosen.

BTW, "person" has not been defined in the apportionment clause context. Various statues with varying definitions for varying purposes are largely irrelevant.

#30

No president has the power to abolish legislatively created agencies. Not the Buffoon, as he's attempted to do, and not the next president. They can severely impair an agency's ability to carry out its mission but cannot wholesale abolish an agency.

He's not a murderer until he's been convicted.

True but I get to use my eyes to make a personal decision. He's a murderer.

The state allows its agents to commit homicide in pursuit of its interests.

WTF kinda mish mash bull**** is that?

The law of self defense is the law of self defense. It's all the same. Who don't matter. Interests don't matter.

Dodged a a bullet in North Harris County. Rained almost all night, including thunder, but temps didn't go much below freezing. Most important the power stayed on.

You are correct.

#16

If you lived in Texas, they'd be dragging you behind a pickup truck.
#24 | Posted by fortfisher

You don't know s**t about Texas. The racist, inbred citizens of deep East Texas sentenced those pieces of s**t to death. IIRC at least one met that fate. Don't speculate about that which you know nothing.

So, the "framework" or the "concept" of a plan is a home run, "knocking it out of the park." Try selling that at the ball park when it's an inch short.

Let me shine that into your eyes while you try to fly a helicopter.

That's your speculation unsupported by the probable cause affidavit. The affidavit does not say where it was pointed. The closest it comes is the helicopter "... flew at a relatively low height and directly above Officer Santiago and D1's location ... ."

A reasonable inference is that it was pointed at the bottom of the helicopter. As a lawyer, that's what I would argue. It's likely the jury thought the same thing. No harm no foul.

There's a reason it's illegal.

Agreed. Including this prosecution though I think it's thin. The difference between us is that I, not having a dog in the hunt, applaud the system. You on the other hand deride the system, "... all it takes is one Democrat ... ," because it did not provide your preferred result.

#36

You could not be more wrong. Use of force rules are use of force rules. Don't matter who utilizes.

That seems to run counter to Pres Trump's stated goal of reducing gas prices.

No, it's counter to the Buffoon's goal of making oil and gas production great again. The idiot and it's advisor's can't figure out it's a down market.

BTW, I paid $2.07 at Walmart for reg. unleaded a couple days ago.

Another example of the stupid club. How do you inject your message into Iran? Maybe your administration's controlled media outlet? Jesus, can these people get any stupider?

It's tiring.

Texas banned photographic evidence of traffic infractions several years ago.

... when I drive I take the necessary steps to be aware of my surroundings at all time ...

I received my first drivers license in 1969 to operate a 5 h.p. or less motor cycle. I quickly learned the roads were not friendly to me. I became a defensive driver out of necessity, live or die. A learned behavior I practice to this date. I'm ever watchful of the complete and total idiots around me.

#12 Try 9. 11 is a glitch.

The other stupid is ... the Third Amendment. An issue not raised in a very long time.
www.courthousenews.com