• This Forum is for adults 18 years of age or over. By continuing to use this Forum you are confirming that you are 18 or older. No content shall be viewed by any person under 18 in California.

Remington Responsible for Sandy Hook shooting ???

Connecticut supreme Court last month allowed a lawsuit against Remington to go forward. The high court could possibly be allowed to find gun makers responsible for acts of violence? WTF. Unbelievable. Honestly in my lifetime i never would have thought I'd seen something like this coming. Soooo... When will Ford, Chevy, Dodge and all the automiloble makers be found responsible for all the drunk drivers killing the thousands more people than guns kill ???
 
That's all on the way, as soon as the Democrats get control again. Look what has happened since 2008.

Joe Salt
I'd almost believe that except the Dems have had full control in the past yet guns seem to be the only item on the chopping block. Not that I want to see vehicle companies responsible in court for deaths. They already cost too much. Imagine how much they'd cost if courts found companies responsible for drunk driving deaths. Just that with the door opened for BS like punishing companies for making products that "could" kill people, the sky's the limit.
 
Connecticut supreme Court last month allowed a lawsuit against Remington to go forward. The high court could possibly be allowed to find gun makers responsible for acts of violence? WTF. Unbelievable. Honestly in my lifetime i never would have thought I'd seen something like this coming. Soooo... When will Ford, Chevy, Dodge and all the automiloble makers be found responsible for all the drunk drivers killing the thousands more people than guns kill ???


See how you like this idea...
 
Wait till MADD sees that Remington / Bushmaster are being held responsible for building the items that kill people by deranged pshycopaths. The doors open for who knows what at this point
 
The issue in the lawsuit is not that the guns killed, it's the marketing of the guns they are suing about. I don't see a negative outcome in the trial as threatening gun manufacturing, but they will have to do a better job on advertising. Their ads "(buy this) and you're ready for war" are IMOP, like yelling FIRE! in a crowded theater. I suspect the jury will feel the same.

So from now on they'll be sure to hire a marketing firm that isn't patently STUPID.
 
Just wait till some enterprizing young lawyer sues the judge that lets the career criminal out for whatever reason and that career criminal goes and rapes or kills or puts someone in a wheelchair for life and that JUDGE becomes responsible for that criminals act!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That has already happened here in liberal Massachusetts.
So far, judge only has gotten a bunch of bad press. Typical Mass.reaction
 
The issue in the lawsuit is not that the guns killed, it's the marketing of the guns they are suing about. I don't see a negative outcome in the trial as threatening gun manufacturing, but they will have to do a better job on advertising. Their ads "(buy this) and you're ready for war" are IMOP, like yelling FIRE! in a crowded theater. I suspect the jury will feel the same.

So from now on they'll be sure to hire a marketing firm that isn't patently STUPID.

Can you point out either the ad from Remington that is the subject of the law suit, or one from them, or other manufacturer that implies: "(buy this) and you're ready for war"...other than perhaps something aimed at militaries?
 
The issue in the lawsuit is not that the guns killed, it's the marketing of the guns they are suing about. I don't see a negative outcome in the trial as threatening gun manufacturing, but they will have to do a better job on advertising. Their ads "(buy this) and you're ready for war" are IMOP, like yelling FIRE! in a crowded theater. I suspect the jury will feel the same.

So from now on they'll be sure to hire a marketing firm that isn't patently STUPID.
Trust me...the issue IS that guns killed people. It's been an ongoing attack on guns since I can remember. Maybe this starts out in advertising BUT it ends up with guns being the target.
 
Here's the previous thread on this issue. It's quite long but the link at the top explains what issues are being litigated. I didn't search it all, but as I recall, there's a pic of the ad I spoke of.

http://forum.accurateshooter.com/th...be-sued-over-sandyhook.3974637/#post-37454190

Quote from the article.

"The regulation of advertising that threatens the public's health, safety, and morals has long been considered a core exercise of the states' police powers," Justice Richard Palmer wrote for the majority.

One caution: News media no longer reports news in a factual manner but instead mixes a lot of OPINION intertwined with some quotes. One has to be careful to sort out the facts, "just the facts ma'am" as Jack Webb used to say.

The fact is that the high courts have generally upheld the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, rejecting lawsuits against gun manufactures. This case is no exception as the high court rejected all elements except the advertising issue.

EDIT: My post in the linked thread (#36) references a screen grab on the evening news, so maybe someone with better searching skills than me can find that screen grab.

Ok, here's an example I found:https://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how-guns-are-advertised-in-america-2012-12
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: GSS
Here's the previous thread on this issue. It's quite long but the link at the top explains what issues are being litigated. I didn't search it all, but as I recall, there's a pic of the ad I spoke of.

http://forum.accurateshooter.com/th...be-sued-over-sandyhook.3974637/#post-37454190

Quote from the article.

"The regulation of advertising that threatens the public's health, safety, and morals has long been considered a core exercise of the states' police powers," Justice Richard Palmer wrote for the majority.

One caution: News media no longer reports news in a factual manner but instead mixes a lot of OPINION intertwined with some quotes. One has to be careful to sort out the facts, "just the facts ma'am" as Jack Webb used to say.

The fact is that the high courts have generally upheld the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, rejecting lawsuits against gun manufactures. This case is no exception as the high court rejected all elements except the advertising issue.

EDIT: My post in the linked thread (#36) references a screen grab on the evening news, so maybe someone with better searching skills than me can find that screen grab.

Ok, here's an example I found:https://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how-guns-are-advertised-in-america-2012-12

Thanks.
That was an interesting article containing the ads.

I have to say, i do not recall ever seeing those ads before.
Perhaps i simply ignored them.
In what publications are the run?

Having said that, i don't see any of the them as the equivalent of crying FIRE in a crowded theatre, as you suggested.
 
It gets down to is "commercial speech" {advertisement} protected under the 1st amendment??? The answer, which has been kicked around since there was a 1st amendment is, yes, it is protected. "Buy this..." and kill, feel good, get drunk, look good, marry or control any woman you want...etc. Where is the difference?
It will cost Remington a lot of money, it will waste a lot of time, it will give the libtard democrats something to cry about, but in the end, well, I don't see how it will pass summary judgement.
 
As I said before... firearms are killing machines. They serve no purpose but to kill.

The Second Amendment is supposed to protect the People's Right to take our government back by force if it is overrun by despots. In order to do that, the "people" need effective, lethal weapons capable of wining a war; potentially against some of our own troops and/or police.

If Remington or any other company are advertising that they make and sell weapons capable and desirable to have in battle, that is the kind of weapon I want. That doesn't mean I want to go to war or kill people, especially not because I saw an ad from a gun maker.

There is no way this case will be won unless the case is heard by a panel of judges who are activists or a jury that has zero understanding of Constitutional law and the meaning/purpose of the Second Amendment.

I put this on the same level as other feeble attempts to blame "Metal" and "Gangster Rap" music, the 3 stooges and violent video games for violence.
 

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.

Forum statistics

Threads
166,826
Messages
2,223,889
Members
79,899
Latest member
Orville. Johnson
Back
Top