Go Back   Maryland Shooters > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues
Don't Have An Account? Register Here

Join MD Shooters

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 19th, 2019, 09:16 PM #41
pbharvey's Avatar
pbharvey pbharvey is online now
Habitual Testifier
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,401
pbharvey pbharvey is online now
Habitual Testifier
pbharvey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,401
And so it begins
Attached Images
 
pbharvey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 19th, 2019, 11:29 PM #42
fidelity's Avatar
fidelity fidelity is offline
piled higher and deeper
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frederick County
Posts: 17,973
fidelity fidelity is offline
piled higher and deeper
fidelity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frederick County
Posts: 17,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Racer Doug14 View Post
Did the psycho that murdered all of those children actually purchase the rifle? I believe his mother, whom he also murdered, purchased the rifle. Then who knows what persuaded her to buy that maker and model?

Yep, she purchased it, owned it, and locked it in her safe. He killed her to get at it.

Eta: reminded earlier in this thread here ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbmcdermott1 View Post
What is most preposterous about the lawsuit is the rifle wasn't sold to Adam Lanza, it was his mother's. She owned the rifle he murders her then takes her rifle, so how will they explain that the rifle was purchased by a middle-aged woman? She doesn't quite fit the description of a young male.
__________________
Post nubes, lux
fidelity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2019, 01:23 PM #43
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 837
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 837
Quote:
Originally Posted by Racer Doug14 View Post
Did the psycho that murdered all of those children actually purchase the rifle? I believe his mother, whom he also murdered, purchased the rifle. Then who knows what persuaded her to buy that maker and model?
Quote:
Originally Posted by fidelity View Post
Yep, she purchased it, owned it, and locked it in her safe. He killed her to get at it.

Eta: reminded earlier in this thread here ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbmcdermott1 View Post
What is most preposterous about the lawsuit is the rifle wasn't sold to Adam Lanza, it was his mother's. She owned the rifle he murders her then takes her rifle, so how will they explain that the rifle was purchased by a middle-aged woman? She doesn't quite fit the description of a young male.
I am not sure why the fact that the shooter did not purchase the rifle matters. The case is about what the manufacturer chose to advertise and associate its product with. The claim is that the shooter chose the rifle because of this association.

From the Brief in Opposition to the Cert Petition
Quote:
The complaint alleges that he chose the XM15-E2S “for its military and assaultive qualities, * * * in particular its efficiency in inflicting mass casualties,” and “because of its marketed association with the military.”
I don't doubt that Remington associated the rifle with the military. What I have a problem with is the association between the military and inflicting mass casualties and murder. Neither of which are legal things to do in the military in the context of what is being alleged.

If this association is allowed to stand then just about any advertising could be a potential issue. Humans are animals so any hunting advertisement could be connected because of this.
jcutonilli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2019, 09:04 AM #44
HaveBlue's Avatar
HaveBlue HaveBlue is offline
HaveBlue
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Virginia
Posts: 338
HaveBlue HaveBlue is offline
HaveBlue
HaveBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Virginia
Posts: 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
I am not sure why the fact that the shooter did not purchase the rifle matters. The case is about what the manufacturer chose to advertise and associate its product with. The claim is that the shooter chose the rifle because of this association.

From the Brief in Opposition to the Cert Petition


I don't doubt that Remington associated the rifle with the military. What I have a problem with is the association between the military and inflicting mass casualties and murder. Neither of which are legal things to do in the military in the context of what is being alleged.

If this association is allowed to stand then just about any advertising could be a potential issue. Humans are animals so any hunting advertisement could be connected because of this.
These frauds constantly seek to identify and groom sympathetic victims and promptly propose a solution that accomplishes their true goal while doing nothing to mitigate the circumstances which caused the victim to suffer in the first place.

They aren’t dumb or deluded. This is very purposeful. If they ever accidentally solve a problem, it would reduce their ability to influence the next in their never ending series of ‘solutions’.

The Anarchist Cookbook and Jeep or ATV advertisements come to mind as examples of products whose marketing hasn’t open legal floodgates for their misuse. There are probably better ones.

The former (along with pornography depicting molestation, rape and torture) has been long held as a necessary evil required to preserve free speech as the most important of the super rights. Even if they incite people to murder or harm other people, their consumers are always responsible for their own actions. I’d be interested to know if the courts have ever heard or sided with victims of violence over free speech in a case. (I wonder how many people in US history have been convicted of inciting a riot?)

The later would seem to encourage the wonton destruction of endangered wildlife habitats and the ultra fragile eco source of the only drug ingredient that will save mankind. I think I saw that second one in a movie. Along with the imminent existential threat to mankind from spewing of scientifically proven, earth ending CO2. These people are marketing Armageddon! Of course people are injured and killed in off-roading accidents. If it wasn’t dangerous, it wouldn’t be fun.

Why do we allow vehicle ads with the disclaimer “professional driver on a closed course” ? Are those items being marketed only to professional drivers or people with access to closed courses? Aren’t people killed by reckless driving?

Just rambling this morning.
HaveBlue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2019, 09:19 AM #45
HaveBlue's Avatar
HaveBlue HaveBlue is offline
HaveBlue
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Virginia
Posts: 338
HaveBlue HaveBlue is offline
HaveBlue
HaveBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Virginia
Posts: 338
What about advertising alcoholic beverages at motor sport events. Especially the ones people drive to (all of them). Drunk driving kills lots of people. The just put small text print at the bottom that says “drink responsibly”..

Maybe the firearms industry just needs to add some text to their ads?

“Professional shooter on a closed course”

“Shoot responsibly”

“No humans or animals were harmed in the testing of these products”

A little rewording of this and Remington should be good to go...

HaveBlue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 23rd, 2019, 02:57 PM #46
Sundancer's Avatar
Sundancer Sundancer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Harford County
Posts: 453
Sundancer Sundancer is offline
Member
Sundancer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Harford County
Posts: 453
I was listening to John Lott being interviewed re this case and scotus. Paraphrasing, he sees the scotus decline being really that it was too early in the process for scotus to get involved. From his brief analysis it sounds like the merits of the suit are weak and that this is essentially a suit to try to find some “smoking gun” Remington memos or the like in the discovery phase.

IMHO, it seems like scotus either knows this suit will die on its own or come back to them in due course.


https://crimeresearch.org/2019/11/on...on-go-forward/



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sundancer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 27th, 2019, 04:39 AM #47
frogman68's Avatar
frogman68 frogman68 is offline
товарищ плачевная
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 6,214
frogman68 frogman68 is offline
товарищ плачевная
frogman68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 6,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancer View Post
I was listening to John Lott being interviewed re this case and scotus. Paraphrasing, he sees the scotus decline being really that it was too early in the process for scotus to get involved. From his brief analysis it sounds like the merits of the suit are weak and that this is essentially a suit to try to find some “smoking gun” Remington memos or the like in the discovery phase.

IMHO, it seems like scotus either knows this suit will die on its own or come back to them in due course.


https://crimeresearch.org/2019/11/on...on-go-forward/



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I still think it's BS now Remington has to spend money on defending this which will be passed onto us. They should of killed it right there
__________________
Hillary's scandals are piling up faster than snowflakes in a blizzard
frogman68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Home Page > Forum List > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2019, Congregate Media, LP Privacy Policy Terms of Service