Thanks for the thread, Omaha Steve.

Their basic complaint is the company should have magically known that Holmes was up to no good.

if the product is defective or the law was violated, what it DOES shield them from is frivolous SLAPP suits designed to bankrupt the firemarms industry.

The Brady org and anti gun big city mayors colluded to file SLAPP suits against firearm companies for the criminal or negligent misuse of their product with the intent to bankrupt the firearms industry, IOW, they tried an end run around the 2A, it backfired on them spectacularly with the passage of the PLCAA in 2005.

Suing a firearm manufacturer for the criminal or negligent misuse of their product is akin to suing Chevy for a drunk driver injuring or killing someone in a Tahoe.
The Congress saw right through the anti 2A forces and took action to protect a perfectly legal industry.

And their lawsuit wasn't dismissed due to the PLCAA, it was dismissed under CO law.

That's certainly something. I don't know what the correct word would be. Brave isn't right.

Whatever the correct word is I'm glad to hear this.

There is a favorite game they play where you are NEVER supposed to change your position on ANYTHING or you are an unreliable flip flopper. ESPECIALLY if you change your opinion based on silly things like facts or emotional appeals. You are supposed to stubbornly stick to your guns (pun intended) until you look stupid doing it.

Like the rest of them.

I'll give you 10 bonus stars if you can guess who said this:

"Does a person not have a right to have an alteration in their thinking over the course of time?”

It's important to know the results of your actions.

Has anyone from the Clinton family met with people affected by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act (ending Welfare as we know it)? I don't know the answer myself.

Trying to finesse this fundamentally stupid and harmful constitutional "right" is just turd-polishing.

Actually, a rewrite of the entire constitution is way overdue.