This doesn't make sense to me..... haven't most firearms been designed as or derived from some type of "MILITARY KILLING MACHINES".
CT Supreme Court Rules Remington can Be Sued Over Sandyhook
- Thread starter wedgy
- Start date
This doesn't make sense to me..... haven't most firearms been designed as or derived from some type of "MILITARY KILLING MACHINES".
The marketing liability business is all about guns but an attack from another direction. Should Remington be promoting rat poison to kill rodents and it be deliberately and unlawfully used to poison dogs nothing would happen to Remington because of the danger advisory on the label warning of misuse. Many households use this common stuff, normal people use it to kill rodents.
I see the marketing effort as promotion of a high quality civilian use firearm capable for tough military use. Forever looking for an opening to attack our 2nd amendment rights, the anti's seized on the "war" word and launched a frivolous law suit driven by politics. Not too smart for Remington to promote this way, like an inflammatory got ya in the minds of the anti gun majority in some places. Win or lose this will be a burdensome event sucking energy from a legit corporation.
Firearms have the potential for causing death and destruction, this is easily seen and compliance with existing law is demanded. Over the counter sales of lethal polonium are not allowed even if promoted for tracking sewage leaks.
As for the cannon flags - in my mind they represent past resistance to nasty oppression, some of today's oppression is frivolous burdensome law suits against gun manufacturers. Another symbol of resistance to past oppression is the yellow flag with the rattle snake. Possessing either is an affirmation of our gun rights.
I see the marketing effort as promotion of a high quality civilian use firearm capable for tough military use. Forever looking for an opening to attack our 2nd amendment rights, the anti's seized on the "war" word and launched a frivolous law suit driven by politics. Not too smart for Remington to promote this way, like an inflammatory got ya in the minds of the anti gun majority in some places. Win or lose this will be a burdensome event sucking energy from a legit corporation.
Firearms have the potential for causing death and destruction, this is easily seen and compliance with existing law is demanded. Over the counter sales of lethal polonium are not allowed even if promoted for tracking sewage leaks.
As for the cannon flags - in my mind they represent past resistance to nasty oppression, some of today's oppression is frivolous burdensome law suits against gun manufacturers. Another symbol of resistance to past oppression is the yellow flag with the rattle snake. Possessing either is an affirmation of our gun rights.
Doubtful, respectfully. The intrinsic value of a car is to get from point A to B, essentially. A mode of transport. Deadly, sometimes.
But intent of a car - is transportation.
The intrinsic purpose of a weapon is to kill an animal or person. Target shooting is a bit esoteric, in this regard.
Although - I am a kindred spirit.
The takeaway - is that automobiles do not (nor mules, nor horse drawn wagons, nor latter day transportation: biplanes, monocoque design, jets, etc.) have a particular protection under the U.S. Constitution & its Amendments.
However -the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution -specifically states:
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
To weaken, lessen, or subordinate the Second Amendment - to latter day whims of the populace - undermines the most important underpinnings of the United States' founding documents, and further weakens the essence of the guiding principles - under and for which - this country was created; with specific documents acknowledged for 200+ years.
These documents specifically guarantee, grant and define - the freedoms, limits, and rights and protections - due the populace - us, the citizens.
Last edited:
I disagree. I shoot paper targets ONLY. So my guns are not intrinsically designed to kill anything. I think this will end up at SCOTUS, and being a product liability issue will be over turned. I own a KBar knife. IF it was used to kill someone, would KBar be held responsible? No. The evil is in the doer, not the tool.
Sir, I'm with you 110%. I just think weapons, as defined under the US Constitution & its' amendments, have even more protections than a car or other potentially deadly device. Agreed, SCOTUS will knock this out straightaway.
If these people are allowed to do this and they win only to set precedent the gun industry is done. I hope the jury doesn't buy into this garbage. Picture this someone grabs a shovel and whacks his co worker over the head . Can and should we sue the shovel company ? We are living in the age of absence of personal accountability. No manufacturer of anything should be held liable for a criminal act or any intentional misuse of their respective product.
I noticed something very much in common with the Sandy Hook story, the Pulse event and several others and that most horrible Jussie event where that poor individual was so brutally beaten and abused in Chicago by those terrible people.
I'm just searching for the right word to describe what these events all were.
I'm just searching for the right word to describe what these events all were.
What I think:
The substance of this decision is that the marketing of the item was irresponsible. This assumes a certain segment of the population is subject to witless behavior. This morphs into an legal assault on the manufacturer using the advertising as a basis. Existing laws exempting manufacturers from responsibility for illegal stuff done using their product won't stop an end run using the marketing aspect of the product - this is high stakes litigation, money politics, public opinion and maneuvering.
The substance of this decision is that the marketing of the item was irresponsible. This assumes a certain segment of the population is subject to witless behavior. This morphs into an legal assault on the manufacturer using the advertising as a basis. Existing laws exempting manufacturers from responsibility for illegal stuff done using their product won't stop an end run using the marketing aspect of the product - this is high stakes litigation, money politics, public opinion and maneuvering.
It probably was irresponsible, but wouldn't they have to prove that it is what caused Adam Lanza to act?
jds holler
Gold $$ Contributor
How about functional authentic replicas of weapons that were designed specifically for battle/war?
Swords, battle axes, daggers, spears, maces, clubs, etc. were designed ONLY for killing humans. They are widely available, popular decorations, -- and sometimes used to murder or assault someone. They must all go.
This logic, or lack of logic, goes on and on, with no end. jd
Swords, battle axes, daggers, spears, maces, clubs, etc. were designed ONLY for killing humans. They are widely available, popular decorations, -- and sometimes used to murder or assault someone. They must all go.
This logic, or lack of logic, goes on and on, with no end. jd
Yea, good point, but then the majority said, "regulation of advertising....", non Lanza, leading me to believe this will be focused on the advertising aspect. Essentially, it is all about guns but attacks using the advertising promotion linked with statements to the effect "military killing machines".
Bottom line is, this ruling was done by an activist Judge. It will get appealed and won't go anywhere... and I'll tell you why I believe this.
The Second Amendment is supposed to protect the People's Right to take our government back by force, if it is overrun by despots. Prior to the early 1930's (and the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act), private citizens owned weapons equal to and greater than that of the military.
The Progressive party tilted the balance in favor of the government with those laws, but that doesn't change the intent of the Second Amendment, to provide the people with the power to go to war against a dictatorial government and restore Constitutional law.
It is very obvious to everyone, on both sides, that this court ruling is an end-run to get around the Second Amendment and the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Part of lawful commerce includes advertising.
CT has a law called the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), which is what this suit has been framed under. The CUTPA prohibits any person from engaging in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. That very prohibition was the justification.
There is nothing "unfair" or "deceptive" in the advertising and marketing of the firearm in question. The group trying to sue says that the CUTPA applies because...
1.) any sale of an AR-15 to the civilian population is fraudulent commercial practice, because these firearms have no legitimate civilian use.
2.) Remington intentionally marketed its version of the AR-15 to school shooters and other violent criminals by having their ad use militaristic images and language, appeals to patriotism, references to the gun’s use and proofing in combat.
They are going to fail on epic levels unless the Judiciary is completely corrupt. On point 1, defense of our nation and freedom by the people is a very legitimate reason to own a weapon of war. All of the other things its used for are just perks, but also still legitimate.
On point 2, its ludicrous on the face of it to imply that the military and Patriots are inherently committing criminal acts, such as school shootings. In fact, the exact opposite is true. The military and Patriots fight for freedom, law and order, which are used to maintain a peaceful and polite society. There is zero connection to patriotism and criminality, therefore there is no "marketing to school shooters" by using imagery of brave and valiant men and women defending freedom.
If by some chance this ends up in proceeding of trial, then our judiciary has failed us.
The Second Amendment is supposed to protect the People's Right to take our government back by force, if it is overrun by despots. Prior to the early 1930's (and the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act), private citizens owned weapons equal to and greater than that of the military.
The Progressive party tilted the balance in favor of the government with those laws, but that doesn't change the intent of the Second Amendment, to provide the people with the power to go to war against a dictatorial government and restore Constitutional law.
It is very obvious to everyone, on both sides, that this court ruling is an end-run to get around the Second Amendment and the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Part of lawful commerce includes advertising.
CT has a law called the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), which is what this suit has been framed under. The CUTPA prohibits any person from engaging in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. That very prohibition was the justification.
There is nothing "unfair" or "deceptive" in the advertising and marketing of the firearm in question. The group trying to sue says that the CUTPA applies because...
1.) any sale of an AR-15 to the civilian population is fraudulent commercial practice, because these firearms have no legitimate civilian use.
2.) Remington intentionally marketed its version of the AR-15 to school shooters and other violent criminals by having their ad use militaristic images and language, appeals to patriotism, references to the gun’s use and proofing in combat.
They are going to fail on epic levels unless the Judiciary is completely corrupt. On point 1, defense of our nation and freedom by the people is a very legitimate reason to own a weapon of war. All of the other things its used for are just perks, but also still legitimate.
On point 2, its ludicrous on the face of it to imply that the military and Patriots are inherently committing criminal acts, such as school shootings. In fact, the exact opposite is true. The military and Patriots fight for freedom, law and order, which are used to maintain a peaceful and polite society. There is zero connection to patriotism and criminality, therefore there is no "marketing to school shooters" by using imagery of brave and valiant men and women defending freedom.
If by some chance this ends up in proceeding of trial, then our judiciary has failed us.
Unless there's something in his documents/internet browsing that ties his actions specifically to those ads, it will be tough to prove a connection. You can't try Remington based upon an opinion that such and such an ad caused so and so to act. They have to have proof.
you nailed it. personally, I think simulated "war games" played on a computer, with the player "shooting" weapons should also be considered with regard to the blurring of intersection of reality, desensitizing ( young men ) players to violence, effectively promoting shooting other persons "digitally."
Similar threads
Upgrades & Donations
This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.