Discussion in 'Main Message Board' started by wedgy, Mar 14, 2019.
Lol. I suppose.
Well if they have those fully automatic assault transmissions in them you know they're going to run amok with them. No sane person needs those right?
How about alcohol? Drunk drivers are a menace today.. Time to sue the makers....
They need to get into the Federal Courts. It will be a different ballgame when the Feds get into it.
Hollywood and Video Games influence kids more than anything else.
If Remington gets sued, they should sue Hollywood and get their money back !
Ohh yeah, lets blame objects for the wrong doing of mentally ill. This way we can all do what we like and not take personal responsibility.
According to liberal values, we should take away all the cars from people who never drink and drive to solve drunk driving problem.
It's the same thing as taking away the guns from law abiding citizens to solve gun violence committed by criminals and the mentally ill.
If this goes through the courts and they win the suit against Remington I suppose overweight persons can sue fast food restaurants for making them fat.
And then there are the drug manufacturers. If we're going to have ignore misuse, I'd say drug companies are responsible for more deaths than anything.
I don't know if statistics support that or not. Probably have a hard time obtaining accurate figures.
Let's outlaw beef! After all, if it saves just one life, then it's worth it. Take care of that nagging bovine flatulence issue at the same time. Splendid!
No doubt, Sandyhook was a black spot in recent history. I see no solution to this stuff unless an all encompassing effort to consider everything is made. Unfortunately, and this varies from state to state, a majority demand a quick and certain fix - thus a single all encompassing effort against guns. Other stuff is ignored like teen use of anti depressants, addiction to video games, social isolation, bully behavior from others, illegal drugs, long term acquired hatred and the list goes on (it would be obvious that I am not a mental health expert). From my experience in high school some 63 years ago or 12 years after millions of Jews were exterminated in Europe, no mention was made of this stuff. In one day 12 to 20 thousand of my people were exterminated a long time before that. Then we have the rape of Nanking by the japs. Ignorance is bliss and politicians pander to public opinion. As one of my U.S. Senators said, in regard to his plans to control semi auto weapons, "its just common sense".
How can a firearm maker be held responsible for a firearm that was bought by a legal/lawful person or parent and a sibling steals it, murders the parent and they goes on a murder spree ?
Next they will be saying a car maker can me sued when a sibling takes the family car for a joy ride and kills someone.
It is a sick world and I often wonder about these judge's and courts now days.
This is way more serious than rosie odonnel jokes. I doubt there is any gun maker, or action maker that could afford the insurance to stay in business if this suit is lost.
It'd take a company with 100 times the revenue of Remington to be self insured.
All we need is for Trump to sign an executive order that requires all state and local governments to follow all constitutional amendments. Right after he replaces RBG.
Does prohibition ring a bell? The law of unintended consequences is what the government faces with much more gun control......
Heck,it's a 30 minute drive from DC to Baltimore...... which has some of the toughest gun laws in the country,and I think they're now 3rd in murders.Congress needs a little field trip up there to see how many care about gun laws.
AR rifles, or MSR's are abundant, in common use for legal purposes, thus should be included in our second amendment. What, sue a manufacturer of an inanimate object used illegally?
I find advertisements for AR rifles interesting and like to see attractive younger people use their rifles as they are/were designed to be used - rapid fire on multiple targets - sport. In a real bad ugly situation with no LE available requiring a "well regulated militia" these inanimate rifles would be deployed the same way to protect my old body.
Make it a point to gripe to your politician and vote.
I am no legal scholar but if I'm reading it correctly, the gun is not the issue Remington is being sued over, it's their marketing of the gun. And IF (big IF) what I saw on the evening (fake) news tonight is correct, the advertising slogan "ready for war" for that gun is, in my opinion a dangerous and reckless marketing scheme when applied to a civilian firearm.
That being said, the Bushmaster the killer used belonged to his mother, whom he killed before attacking the school. Remington legally sold the gun to his parent and it was then stolen after murdering the owner. Murder, theft of a firearm are both felonies preceding the school massacre. Remington has many avenues to refute liability there if that were the issue.
I am surprised the court agreed to let it go to trial, and I doubt it'll succeed. It's not a second amendment issue at stake, but a liability in marketing, something states can control. But mostly it's a dog and pony show for lawyers and politicians to stump in the run up to an election.
Imagine for a moment that you've invented an undetectable poison that you market for the purpose of killing a dog who's barking or other bad behavior is a nuisance/danger to you, and you advertise it in nationwide magazines. States could hold hold you liable because your product is designed to harm people through the death of their pets.
So don't go running for your "come and take it" flags (oh yea, they're popular here in Texas) just yet. It's not about guns, it's about liability in marketing.
Why do people interpret this as gun legislation? It's way worse, no American company will make any new guns if this carries through. Then we can fight new laws.
What ever the reason they are getting sued or will be getting sued. They should counter sue with everything they can bring to bear against anyone who will sue them.
I have been sued a couple times and I had a counter suit against them with in 24 hours of getting served. It is amazing how fast it works.
Correct me if i error, but didn't federal legislation get passed under Bush 2.0 that forbid the suing of any company for the illegal use of their legally produced and purchased product, be it a car, knife, alcoholic beverage or firearm? In other words if I buy a F250 and use it to commit single or mass murder Ford can not in any way be held responsible.
There's no way Remington will lose this case. This is simply poor jurisprudence from the Connecticut Supreme Court. And you can bet politically motivated - vs a reading of precedence and the protections gun manufacturers have from this act. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act. This merely allows a suit to be brought against Remington. It is harassment will cost Remington boodles of attorney fees and time.
Bernie Sanders, who as a congressman voted for the law in 2005, defended the law in October 2015, saying: "If somebody has a gun and it falls into the hands of a murderer and the murderer kills somebody with a gun, do you hold the gun manufacturer responsible? Not any more than you would hold a hammer company responsible if somebody beats somebody over the head with a hammer."
Separate names with a comma.