• 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 ???

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.
That second sentence is feeding right into the hands of the anti gun tards. They serve no purpose but to kill !!! That's ridiculous. As many competition shooters on here and in many other circles that DO NOT hunt or kill with their rifles tells us that they aren't ONLY for killing. I get your point but that sentence is just plain wrong.
 
The goal is, as we all know, is to remove arms and access to arms from the general public. Why? Because the future planned for us by liberals is so onerous that they KNOW a revolt could develop. But, even if a revolt does develop, gun owners are already branded as fanatics, which they make synonymous with terrorist. We all know where it leads because that definition justifies destruction of the terrorist at any cost.
 
That second sentence is feeding right into the hands of the anti gun tards. They serve no purpose but to kill !!! That's ridiculous. As many competition shooters on here and in many other circles that DO NOT hunt or kill with their rifles tells us that they aren't ONLY for killing. I get your point but that sentence is just plain wrong.

I'm sorry you find issue with it, but guns were engineered for killing and no other reason. Just because you use it for something else, doesn't mean that is what they are engineered for.

Also, there is nothing wrong with tools engineered specifically for killing. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to have tools engineered for taking human life as efficiently as possible.
 
Last edited:
... but guns were engineered for killing and no other reason.

What are these "engineered to kill"?

upload_2019-4-10_10-34-15.jpeg

Rail20.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: ED3
If you haven't already read this California Southern District Court decision PROTECTING ownership of large capacity magazines, you owe it to yourself to do so and understand the procedures and methods THIS JUDGE referred to and utilized in his decision STRIKING DOWN a lower court judge decision to ban high capacity magazines both in hand guns and long arms.

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...-2019-03-29-Order-Granting-Plaintiffs-MSJ.pdf

IMOP understanding these legal reasoning tools is essential in knowing how to protect your Constitutional rights including by writing to your elected officials. These are important arguing points when writing to your congressman about proposed bans on firearms and firearm related components, especially when explaining to him/her their proposed legislation will only cost taxpayers more of their hard earned cash as it will surely fail as it's litigated up to the SCOTUS. Be sure to ask if s/he would like that cost to come out of their pension and medical plans funds.
 
Oh, brother... I can tell any further conversation will be a wast of time. Have fun guys.
I get your point. Guns kill. It's not ONLY what guns are primarily use
Oh, brother... I can tell any further conversation will be a wast of time. Have fun guys.
Don't back out now. I wasn't being offensive by my comment. Just saying guns aren't just for killing. Maybe back in the 1300's when they were just tubes or cannons throwing shrapnel and gravel for defense but many many years have passed. Main thing is...Guns aren't for only killing today. Like banning steak knives cause some people kill with them. It's getting pretty ridiculous today really.
 
I get your point. Guns kill. It's not ONLY what guns are primarily use

Don't back out now. I wasn't being offensive by my comment. Just saying guns aren't just for killing. Maybe back in the 1300's when they were just tubes or cannons throwing shrapnel and gravel for defense but many many years have passed. Main thing is...Guns aren't for only killing today. Like banning steak knives cause some people kill with them. It's getting pretty ridiculous today really.

I took no offense. I see your point. I just don't want to debate it. I'd rather stay friends. I have seen convos derail threads and get people upset. I prefer to avoid it.
 
Hey guys how about my Louisville slugger, that has been soaking in motor oil since the 60's I always said if I hated someone that much that I wanted to kill them, I want to hear there head smash when I hit them with it! Guys CAIN killed ABEL with a rock.

Joe Salt
 
Well I've personally never saw a gun kill anything or anybody.
People on the other hand is the problem, lots of violence and killing there.
Edit, it's all in the verbage and how you chose to use it.
 
Well I've personally never saw a gun kill anything or anybody.
People on the other hand is the problem, lots of violence and killing there.
Edit, it's all in the verbage and how you chose to use it.

Amen sir!!!!!
One way to say it might be that guns were made to preserve something....your life, your family, your property,your government, etc. Now, if the simple production of a gun "at the table" is not enough deterrence then a good wounding might get 'er done and if they still don't get it then kill. So yeah, guns will kill, guns were made to get the job done and if that means killing then okay. I doubt if there is a person on this forum that doesn't understand the whole "gun is a tool" and to quote the History Channel "that has served hero and villain alike". The question is can a third party be held responsible for the advertisement of an inanimate object that is capable of causing harm to another person???
If the answer to this is ever "yes" then no one, I mean no one is safe from this lunacy. Imagine how many people have heart trouble because of fast food. Honestly, I see this as something to occupy the libtards so they don't constantly worry that we have already figured out global warming is hog schitt!!!!
 
Same here. Just opinions.

Everybody has opinions. You need to do some homework because this is far from being anti gun bullshit, it is more complicated.
Ask yourself, why would they sue Remington ? Remington is in effect bankrupt, they have nothing.
This is not actually about guns, it is about money.
Being bankrupt, essentially their creditors own the company, two of the largest being JP Morgan and Franklin Templeton.
Starting to see a picture here? Far from a normal gun issue.
If they , in effect, own the company, some enterprising law firm believes they are now legally culpable, so we finally get to deep pockets.
Lots of legal maneuvering but lets remember also Remy never marketed to kids, as is alleged. The kid, mentally challenged as he was, stole the gun from it’s legal, lawful owner soooo there is one hell of a lot of water to carry here.
 
Everybody has opinions. You need to do some homework because this is far from being anti gun bullshit, it is more complicated.
Ask yourself, why would they sue Remington ? Remington is in effect bankrupt, they have nothing.
This is not actually about guns, it is about money.
Being bankrupt, essentially their creditors own the company, two of the largest being JP Morgan and Franklin Templeton.
Starting to see a picture here? Far from a normal gun issue.
If they , in effect, own the company, some enterprising law firm believes they are now legally culpable, so we finally get to deep pockets.
Lots of legal maneuvering but lets remember also Remy never marketed to kids, as is alleged. The kid, mentally challenged as he was, stole the gun from it’s legal, lawful owner soooo there is one hell of a lot of water to carry here.
Preaching to the choir here on the fact Remington doesn't market to kids. It takes mentally FU people to slaughter other people for no reason. Doesn't matter who the gun maker is. It's always about guns. When someone is killed by a gun or guns, it becomes about guns first. Then about money. Always starts with "The gun killed these people". Who knows where it will end up. I do know that in the end, it's the guns that they want control over. Not money. Anyone that thinks it's not about gun control is kidding themselves.
 
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 ???
 

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