Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
LogicIsForSquares

Newtown families allowed to sue Remington

Recommended Posts

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/court-to-rule-on-newtown-shooting-lawsuit-against-gun-maker/2019/03/14/a52932dc-466e-11e9-94ab-d2dda3c0df52_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1c0d1ba8ff68

Talk about repercussions for anyone who produces a consumer product. Now any item that is misused by a consumer to harm another consumer (car, knife, bat, etc.) can lead to a manufacturer lawsuit. Yeehaw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a disgrace - will never win in the end.

The first judge I looked up, was appointed by...

Gov Malloy back then - a DEMOCRAT.

I just quit there.

It can't stand - the marketing doesn't say anything about using the gun illegally, etc.

Just another political character assassination - corporate killer. and, the usual liberal attempted lottery win for

the lawyers and victims.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, calfoxwc said:

It's a disgrace - will never win in the end.

The first judge I looked up, was appointed by...

Gov Malloy back then - a DEMOCRAT.

I just quit there.

It can't stand - the marketing doesn't say anything about using the gun illegally, etc.

Just another political character assassination - corporate killer. and, the usual liberal attempted lottery win for

the lawyers and victims.

And to bankrupt gun manufacturers. 

 

97c8c0859e10525ab9d864f62ae6f0e0.jpg

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said:

And to bankrupt gun manufacturers. 

It can be used to bankrupt anyone really. Any company that sells consumer goods in the U.S. No car has been marketed as being good at flattening out people on the sidewalk but this judge believes they should be held accountable if someone misuses their Toyota truck. It is unreal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This makes two outlandish stories in 2 days that turned out to be bogus...the other being about cops being required to call in before using their firearms.

This one IS bogus right?

RIGHT??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you know democrat judges and their rulings are based on whatever their fellow activist hater dems want.

they almost owned the U.S. Supreme Court, except we elected PRes Trump and saved America.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gorka said:

This makes two outlandish stories in 2 days that turned out to be bogus...the other being about cops being required to call in before using their firearms.

This one IS bogus right?

RIGHT??

This one comes from the Washington post. Uc that right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Clevfan4life said:

This one comes from the Washington post. Uc that right?

This is basically what AOC said of Wells Fargo...

 

 "If there was a leak from the Dakota Access Pipeline," Ocasio-Cortez asked rhetorically, "why shouldn’t Wells Fargo pay for the cleanup of it, since it paid for the construction of the pipeline itself?”

"Because we don't operate the project," Sloan responded. "We provide financing to the company that’s operating the pipeline.”

This is getting embarrassing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vambo said:

This is basically what AOC said of Wells Fargo...

 

 "If there was a leak from the Dakota Access Pipeline," Ocasio-Cortez asked rhetorically, "why shouldn’t Wells Fargo pay for the cleanup of it, since it paid for the construction of the pipeline itself?”

"Because we don't operate the project," Sloan responded. "We provide financing to the company that’s operating the pipeline.”

This is getting embarrassing.

 

Yeah and? I wrote about it a few days ago and whst bullshit it was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Clevfan4life said:

Yeah and? I wrote about it a few days ago and whst bullshit it was.

I'm happy for you!:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Vambo said:

I'm happy for you!:D

U have noticed I don't care for her one bit right? Honestly not a single left leaning person here really does. That's the difference between the two sides here. One side still has some of its rationing and reasoning faculties intact. So someone like aoc doesnt get apologized for unlike.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Clevfan4life said:

U have noticed I don't care for her one bit right? Honestly not a single left leaning person here really does. That's the difference between the two sides here. One side still has some of its rationing and reasoning faculties intact. So someone like aoc doesnt get apologized for unlike.....

I'm happy for you!:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said for some time that military level weapons like the Bushmaster should not be in he hands of civilians any more than anti-tank weapons, grenades, Claymore mines, etc. If you have seen any of the advertisement Remington uses to peddle these things, then as a parent of one of the defenseless elementary school children in the shootings, you'd likely file suit on them too if you were being honest. The 2nd amendment was written even before repeating rifles, let alone this level of military weapon. They have no place other than the military and the "well organized militia" that is called The National Guard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, TexasAg1969 said:

 They have no place other than the military and the "well organized regulated militia" that is called The National Guard.

No.

A militia is generally an army or some other fighting organization of non-professional soldiers, citizens of a nation, or subjects of a state, who can be called upon for military service during a time.

 Bear in mind that when the 2nd Amendment was written, there *was* no National Guard. The militia was ‘every man willing and able to show up with a musket, powder and bullets.’ The term ‘Well-regulated’ is another point of contention and confusion; a ‘well-regulated militia’ is not one subject to reams of rules and paperwork, but rather one that is skilled and capable of carrying out its duties. It wasn’t enough to be a bunch of guys with muskets; they actually had to be able to fight as a small unit. In order for that to happen, they had to have their own firearms to practice with on their own time.

Even today, with all the various Federal regular and reserve forces and the National Guard units, there is still a legal body deemed “the unorganized militia” which is basically every male citizen 17–45 who doesn’t wear a military or first-responder uniform.

Another source:

http://constitutionalmilitia.org/well-regulated-militia/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the correction. I meant to say well regulated, which the National Guard is. Guys with military level weapons unaffiliated/untrained together are not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, TexasAg1969 said:

Thanks for the correction. I meant to say well regulated, which the National Guard is. Guys with military level weapons unaffiliated/untrained together are not.

Of course nowhere in the amendment is the National Guard or any of that specified. There's absolutely no reason that die hard couldn't put together a couple dozen men and consider them well regulated.

WSS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

same old ignorant talking point from texsag, same old no surprise.

outside of saying all anti-gun people have a profoundly low IQ, it's apparent

that it's a deliberate "in your face because you aren't like us" liberal move.

   The bushmaster has a mean name that makes liberals wet their pants, I don't care.

It comes in semi-auto, lever action and bolt action. It's just like a regular gun. And the pistol grip doesn't fly off the gun and kill people like a pilotless drone.

just so willfully ignorant, liberals are.

https://www.ammoland.com/2019/03/connecticut-gun-lawsuit-prosecuting-car-makers-crimes-car-thieves/?utm_source=Ammoland+Subscribers&utm_campaign=dccdf9d5a7-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6f6fac3eaa-dccdf9d5a7-20770865#axzz5i7oqUTJR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Westside Steve said:

Of course nowhere in the amendment is the National Guard or any of that specified. There's absolutely no reason that die hard couldn't put together a couple dozen men and consider them well regulated.

WSS

There are a lot of military retirees right here in Sun City near where I live. We could do that too, but you know we would be infiltrated by the FBI/H.S. in a NY minute to make sure we were not some kind of terrorist group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

especially in the obamao commie years texsag loved so much.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TexasAg1969 said:

There are a lot of military retirees right here in Sun City near where I live. We could do that too, but you know we would be infiltrated by the FBI/H.S. in a NY minute to make sure we were not some kind of terrorist group.

That's true but it also begs the question so what? It doesn't disprove the fact that would probably be a well regulated militia.

WSS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Westside Steve said:

Of course nowhere in the amendment is the National Guard or any of that specified. There's absolutely no reason that die hard couldn't put together a couple dozen men and consider them well regulated.

WSS

Funny you should mention it.  Here's my local militia:

 

Image result for old man militia pics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TexasAg1969 said:

I've said for some time that military level weapons like the Bushmaster should not be in he hands of civilians any more than anti-tank weapons, grenades, Claymore mines, etc. If you have seen any of the advertisement Remington uses to peddle these things, then as a parent of one of the defenseless elementary school children in the shootings, you'd likely file suit on them too if you were being honest. The 2nd amendment was written even before repeating rifles, let alone this level of military weapon. They have no place other than the military and the "well organized militia" that is called The National Guard.

We agreed on bumpstocks being banned. For me it was because I cannot support anything that will take a semi automatic and make it mimic an  automatic. Although I agree with the slippery slope argument by Logic who disagreed with the ban it is a personal thing with me.

I have a huge disagreement with you on this issue. My battle has always been to keep semi automatic weapons legal. This is the real slippery slope when you start banning one type of a semi automatic that really opens that door to eventually banning all semi automatics. The fact of the matter is the so called assault military style rifles are not much different than other semi automatic hunting rifles in design except it is scary looking to some with the military look (which many of the features are cosmetic). It is not a real military automatic rifle. If someone for example is a veteran and likes the style of a military rifle because it is what they are used to and they are law abiding citizens why should that right be taken away? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll have to read what case they're trying to make.

I imagine it isn't "guns bad! Ban all guns!" like some here think. 

Plus there was a law and order episode like this haha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

I'll have to read what case they're trying to make.

I imagine it isn't "guns bad! Ban all guns!" like some here think. 

Plus there was a law and order episode like this haha

More like well we're probably going to miss the little fuckers but a few million simoleons apiece will certainly make that a lot more tolerable.

WSS

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, TexasAg1969 said:

 The 2nd amendment was written even before repeating rifles, let alone this level of military weapon. They have no place other than the military and the "well organized militia" that is called The National Guard.

Is the second amendment just for muskets? … you might be asking yourself if you’re an idiot.

We’ve heard the argument countless times from anti-gun advocates.

The problem is that it’s dead wrong. We’ll get to all of the pre-constitution assault weapons that already existed in a second. But firstly, to believe this premise you’d have to believe that the founding fathers were SO stupid they have never witnessed nor anticipated any kind of technological advancement in weaponry whatsoever.

Believe it or not weapons have evolved since the beginning of mankind. Rocks became sharper rocks, sharper rocks became clubs, clubs became swords, swords became guns etc etc.

Also, quick irony alert (IRONY ALERT GRAPHIC), many of the filthy hipsters wanting to take away your 2nd amendment rights claiming that it wasn’t written for advanced technology are doing so by exercising their first amendment rights… written long before their iphones. //

But finally the good stuff, the guns. Turns out that by the time the 2nd amendment was written, assault weapons already existed.

-Yep just take the belton flintlock developed during the revolutionary war that could fire 20 or so rounds in 5 seconds with one pull of the finger.

-Or the girandoni rifle, where a 22 high capacity round magazine accurately could be fired within 30 seconds created during the revolutionary war which was later used by Thomas Jefferson to famously outfit the lewis and clark expedition.

- Or even the Puckle gun early gatling gun created 60 years before the revolutionry war.

- Heck even the Pepper box revolvers some could hold over 20 rounds and were developed hundreds of years before the founding fathers.

Not only were the founding fathers aware of these weapons, they were FANS for crying out loud. Here's a letter of marque and reprisal signed by President Madison

for a privately owned ship carrying cannons that was authorized to attack enemy shipping. These were not muskets. And the founding fathers didn’t give no craps.

 

Cutaway to Madison with the machine gun effects.

The most important takeaway here is that even though the second amendment is written in a way that LITERALLY applies to all weapons, contrary to what we’ve been told the more attention we give to its context and history, the more you see that the founding fathers EXPRESSLY wrote it this way in full knowledge to include very serious, effective weapons. // So anytime a silly leftist tells you that the second amendment is for muskets, send them this video because it’s done. The argument is over. End of story, no more, stop misninforming the American public, you filthy hippies.

https://www.truthrevolt.org/commentary/2nd-amendment-it-muskets-only

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

I'll have to read what case they're trying to make.

I imagine it isn't "guns bad! Ban all guns!" like some here think. 

Plus there was a law and order episode like this haha

If my memory serves me correctly

The jury convicted the gun company and then the judge threw it out

Must of been a liberal jury and a conservative judge 🤪

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×