Sandy Hook Families Can Sue Remington
Comments
-
-
Gotta admit, I find that bravado shit kinda distasteful.HHusky said: -
easy there turboSledog said:
Yes I do.HHusky said:
You don't know what you're talking about.Sledog said:
I see Remington advertising. So yes I have seen what would be considered "evidence".HHusky said:
Please just live with the fact that Congress caved and it will be reversed. You have no idea what evidence was presented.Sledog said:The Court keeps referencing Remington violated the Consumer Protection Statute by somehow advertising "illegal or criminal activity ". Of course Remington doesn't do that. How could Remington's advertising have made Lanza murder his mother and steal her weapons?
This is what happens when courts try to legislate their political opinions via the bench.
If someone steals your Prius and runs someone over your gonna be in deep shit!
It's OK. This isn't going to stand. Just try to be happy.
Anyone that thinks a person or entity should be responsible for the criminal actions of another under the circumstances of this case isn't thinking clearly.
Of course Lanza;s mom thinking shooting is good thing for her son, whom she knew to nutty, is crazy. She doesn't have any money so they go after Remington. That and the whole gun control agenda of wanting to bankrupt gun manufacturers as a form of gun control.
I wish they'd get the lawsuits on weed sellers going. -
Agree but it's not aimed at school shooters. More of a militia focus groupGrundleStiltzkin said:
Gotta admit, I find that bravado shit kinda distasteful.HHusky said: -
What a fucking idiot.2001400ex said:
Were they complicit in criminal activity?RaceBannon said:
Can we sue their banks?2001400ex said:
Imagine if we were able to sue tobacco companies for people dying from cigarettes.greenblood said:Imagine if we were able to sue Coors and Ford if some drunk driver in an Explorer killed somebody...
Are we done with strawman now? -
Like Sledog being a fucking retard had escaped your attention until now.RaceBannon said:
WhoaSledog said:
Yes I do.HHusky said:
You don't know what you're talking about.Sledog said:
I see Remington advertising. So yes I have seen what would be considered "evidence".HHusky said:
Please just live with the fact that Congress caved and it will be reversed. You have no idea what evidence was presented.Sledog said:The Court keeps referencing Remington violated the Consumer Protection Statute by somehow advertising "illegal or criminal activity ". Of course Remington doesn't do that. How could Remington's advertising have made Lanza murder his mother and steal her weapons?
This is what happens when courts try to legislate their political opinions via the bench.
If someone steals your Prius and runs someone over your gonna be in deep shit!
It's OK. This isn't going to stand. Just try to be happy.
Anyone that thinks a person or entity should be responsible for the criminal actions of another under the circumstances of this case isn't thinking clearly.
Of course Lanza;s mom thinking shooting is good thing for her son, whom she knew to nutty, is crazy. She doesn't have any money so they go after Remington. That and the whole gun control agenda of wanting to bankrupt gun manufacturers as a form of gun control.
I wish they'd get the lawsuits on weed sellers going. -
If they can sue a federally protected industry how do you think it'll go for an industry the feds say is illegal?RaceBannon said:
WhoaSledog said:
Yes I do.HHusky said:
You don't know what you're talking about.Sledog said:
I see Remington advertising. So yes I have seen what would be considered "evidence".HHusky said:
Please just live with the fact that Congress caved and it will be reversed. You have no idea what evidence was presented.Sledog said:The Court keeps referencing Remington violated the Consumer Protection Statute by somehow advertising "illegal or criminal activity ". Of course Remington doesn't do that. How could Remington's advertising have made Lanza murder his mother and steal her weapons?
This is what happens when courts try to legislate their political opinions via the bench.
If someone steals your Prius and runs someone over your gonna be in deep shit!
It's OK. This isn't going to stand. Just try to be happy.
Anyone that thinks a person or entity should be responsible for the criminal actions of another under the circumstances of this case isn't thinking clearly.
Of course Lanza;s mom thinking shooting is good thing for her son, whom she knew to nutty, is crazy. She doesn't have any money so they go after Remington. That and the whole gun control agenda of wanting to bankrupt gun manufacturers as a form of gun control.
I wish they'd get the lawsuits on weed sellers going. -
I understood your pointSledog said:
If they can sue a federally protected industry how do you think it'll go for an industry the feds say is illegal?RaceBannon said:
WhoaSledog said:
Yes I do.HHusky said:
You don't know what you're talking about.Sledog said:
I see Remington advertising. So yes I have seen what would be considered "evidence".HHusky said:
Please just live with the fact that Congress caved and it will be reversed. You have no idea what evidence was presented.Sledog said:The Court keeps referencing Remington violated the Consumer Protection Statute by somehow advertising "illegal or criminal activity ". Of course Remington doesn't do that. How could Remington's advertising have made Lanza murder his mother and steal her weapons?
This is what happens when courts try to legislate their political opinions via the bench.
If someone steals your Prius and runs someone over your gonna be in deep shit!
It's OK. This isn't going to stand. Just try to be happy.
Anyone that thinks a person or entity should be responsible for the criminal actions of another under the circumstances of this case isn't thinking clearly.
Of course Lanza;s mom thinking shooting is good thing for her son, whom she knew to nutty, is crazy. She doesn't have any money so they go after Remington. That and the whole gun control agenda of wanting to bankrupt gun manufacturers as a form of gun control.
I wish they'd get the lawsuits on weed sellers going.
But some things cross the line here -
Sleedoog is JeffSessionsFSRaceBannon said:
I understood your pointSledog said:
If they can sue a federally protected industry how do you think it'll go for an industry the feds say is illegal?RaceBannon said:
WhoaSledog said:
Yes I do.HHusky said:
You don't know what you're talking about.Sledog said:
I see Remington advertising. So yes I have seen what would be considered "evidence".HHusky said:
Please just live with the fact that Congress caved and it will be reversed. You have no idea what evidence was presented.Sledog said:The Court keeps referencing Remington violated the Consumer Protection Statute by somehow advertising "illegal or criminal activity ". Of course Remington doesn't do that. How could Remington's advertising have made Lanza murder his mother and steal her weapons?
This is what happens when courts try to legislate their political opinions via the bench.
If someone steals your Prius and runs someone over your gonna be in deep shit!
It's OK. This isn't going to stand. Just try to be happy.
Anyone that thinks a person or entity should be responsible for the criminal actions of another under the circumstances of this case isn't thinking clearly.
Of course Lanza;s mom thinking shooting is good thing for her son, whom she knew to nutty, is crazy. She doesn't have any money so they go after Remington. That and the whole gun control agenda of wanting to bankrupt gun manufacturers as a form of gun control.
I wish they'd get the lawsuits on weed sellers going.
But some things cross the line here -
Thank goodness militias aren't filled with psychopaths.RaceBannon said:
Agree but it's not aimed at school shooters. More of a militia focus groupGrundleStiltzkin said:
Gotta admit, I find that bravado shit kinda distasteful.HHusky said: -
So is the legal profession but you still can't blame a militia for a school shootingHHusky said:
Thank goodness militias aren't filled with psychopaths.RaceBannon said:
Agree but it's not aimed at school shooters. More of a militia focus groupGrundleStiltzkin said:
Gotta admit, I find that bravado shit kinda distasteful.HHusky said: -
You're telling me?RaceBannon said:
So is the legal professionHHusky said:
Thank goodness militias aren't filled with psychopaths.RaceBannon said:
Agree but it's not aimed at school shooters. More of a militia focus groupGrundleStiltzkin said:
Gotta admit, I find that bravado shit kinda distasteful.HHusky said: -
Was Wells Fargo complicit in any criminal activity when they loaned money to build that pipeline?2001400ex said:
Were they complicit in criminal activity?RaceBannon said:
Can we sue their banks?2001400ex said:
Imagine if we were able to sue tobacco companies for people dying from cigarettes.greenblood said:Imagine if we were able to sue Coors and Ford if some drunk driver in an Explorer killed somebody...
Are we done with strawman now? -
He didn't use an ACR. It wasn't law enforcement or self defense. HTHHHusky said: -
-
Neither one of us knows the answer to that. HTHSFGbob said:
Was Wells Fargo complicit in any criminal activity when they loaned money to build that pipeline?2001400ex said:
Were they complicit in criminal activity?RaceBannon said:
Can we sue their banks?2001400ex said:
Imagine if we were able to sue tobacco companies for people dying from cigarettes.greenblood said:Imagine if we were able to sue Coors and Ford if some drunk driver in an Explorer killed somebody...
Are we done with strawman now? -
Bullshit. Due to willful ignorance you may not know but I know there was no criminal activity on the part of Wells Fargo simply for loaning them money to build the pipeline.2001400ex said:
Neither one of us knows the answer to that. HTHSFGbob said:
Was Wells Fargo complicit in any criminal activity when they loaned money to build that pipeline?2001400ex said:
Were they complicit in criminal activity?RaceBannon said:
Can we sue their banks?2001400ex said:
Imagine if we were able to sue tobacco companies for people dying from cigarettes.greenblood said:Imagine if we were able to sue Coors and Ford if some drunk driver in an Explorer killed somebody...
Are we done with strawman now? -
I think the thread is about marketing killing devices to psychopaths. Or nits.Sledog said: -
Really? Explain how the ad attracts cray people please. How does it tell you to murder your mother and steal her gun? Where does it encourage murdering small children etc.HHusky said:
I think the thread is about marketing killing devices to psychopaths. Or nits.Sledog said:
You got some 'splainin to do! -
I do.2001400ex said:
Neither one of us knows the answer to that. HTHSFGbob said:
Was Wells Fargo complicit in any criminal activity when they loaned money to build that pipeline?2001400ex said:
Were they complicit in criminal activity?RaceBannon said:
Can we sue their banks?2001400ex said:
Imagine if we were able to sue tobacco companies for people dying from cigarettes.greenblood said:Imagine if we were able to sue Coors and Ford if some drunk driver in an Explorer killed somebody...
Are we done with strawman now?
Also know you’re a fucking idiot. Defending that. Dishonest fuckwit -
I’m not one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys. I agree they’ll have to prove it if the case proceeds. I’ve already said I doubt it will survive the Federal appeals process.Sledog said:
Really? Explain how the ad attracts cray people please. How does it tell you to murder your mother and steal her gun? Where does it encourage murdering small children etc.HHusky said:
I think the thread is about marketing killing devices to psychopaths. Or nits.Sledog said:
You got some 'splainin to do! -
I have personally known many guns and they wouldn’t hurt a fly
