Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

Sandy Hook Families Can Sue Remington

2

Comments

  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    edited March 2019

    2001400ex said:

    Imagine if we were able to sue Coors and Ford if some drunk driver in an Explorer killed somebody...

    Imagine if we were able to sue tobacco companies for people dying from cigarettes.

    Are we done with strawman now?
    Can we sue their banks?
    Were they complicit in criminal activity?
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 105,790 Founders Club
    2001400ex said:

    2001400ex said:

    Imagine if we were able to sue Coors and Ford if some drunk driver in an Explorer killed somebody...

    Imagine if we were able to sue tobacco companies for people dying from cigarettes.

    Are we done with strawman now?
    Can we sue their banks?
    We're they complicit in criminal activity?
    Why are you asking me that question?
  • greenbloodgreenblood Member Posts: 14,412
    How about bullet and metal manufactures?
  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457

    2001400ex said:

    2001400ex said:

    Imagine if we were able to sue Coors and Ford if some drunk driver in an Explorer killed somebody...

    Imagine if we were able to sue tobacco companies for people dying from cigarettes.

    Are we done with strawman now?
    Can we sue their banks?
    We're they complicit in criminal activity?
    Why are you asking me that question?
    Why do you not understand the question?
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 105,790 Founders Club
    2001400ex said:

    2001400ex said:

    2001400ex said:

    Imagine if we were able to sue Coors and Ford if some drunk driver in an Explorer killed somebody...

    Imagine if we were able to sue tobacco companies for people dying from cigarettes.

    Are we done with strawman now?
    Can we sue their banks?
    We're they complicit in criminal activity?
    Why are you asking me that question?
    Why do you not understand the question?
    Did I say I didn't understand the question? You need to read for comprehension
  • HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 20,756

    How about bullet and metal manufactures?

    I know you gals love hypotheticals, but the lawsuit is based on marketing decisions.
  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457

    2001400ex said:

    2001400ex said:

    2001400ex said:

    Imagine if we were able to sue Coors and Ford if some drunk driver in an Explorer killed somebody...

    Imagine if we were able to sue tobacco companies for people dying from cigarettes.

    Are we done with strawman now?
    Can we sue their banks?
    We're they complicit in criminal activity?
    Why are you asking me that question?
    Why do you not understand the question?
    Did I say I didn't understand the question? You need to read for comprehension
    So you want to avoid the question.
  • MikeDamoneMikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781
    I going to wait to comment until @SandyHooker weighs in.
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 105,790 Founders Club
    2001400ex said:

    2001400ex said:

    2001400ex said:

    2001400ex said:

    Imagine if we were able to sue Coors and Ford if some drunk driver in an Explorer killed somebody...

    Imagine if we were able to sue tobacco companies for people dying from cigarettes.

    Are we done with strawman now?
    Can we sue their banks?
    We're they complicit in criminal activity?
    Why are you asking me that question?
    Why do you not understand the question?
    Did I say I didn't understand the question? You need to read for comprehension
    So you want to avoid the question.
    What question?
  • GrundleStiltzkinGrundleStiltzkin Member Posts: 61,499 Standard Supporter
    HHusky said:
    Gotta admit, I find that bravado shit kinda distasteful.
  • SwayeSwaye Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 41,487 Founders Club
    Sledog said:

    HHusky said:

    Sledog said:

    HHusky said:

    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.

    Please just live with the fact that Congress caved and it will be reversed. You have no idea what evidence was presented.
    I see Remington advertising. So yes I have seen what would be considered "evidence".

    If someone steals your Prius and runs someone over your gonna be in deep shit!
    You don't know what you're talking about.

    It's OK. This isn't going to stand. Just try to be happy.
    Yes I do.

    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.
    easy there turbo
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 105,790 Founders Club

    HHusky said:
    Gotta admit, I find that bravado shit kinda distasteful.
    Agree but it's not aimed at school shooters. More of a militia focus group
  • pawzpawz Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 20,932 Founders Club
    2001400ex said:

    2001400ex said:

    Imagine if we were able to sue Coors and Ford if some drunk driver in an Explorer killed somebody...

    Imagine if we were able to sue tobacco companies for people dying from cigarettes.

    Are we done with strawman now?
    Can we sue their banks?
    Were they complicit in criminal activity?
    What a fucking idiot.
  • dfleadflea Member Posts: 7,233

    Sledog said:

    HHusky said:

    Sledog said:

    HHusky said:

    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.

    Please just live with the fact that Congress caved and it will be reversed. You have no idea what evidence was presented.
    I see Remington advertising. So yes I have seen what would be considered "evidence".

    If someone steals your Prius and runs someone over your gonna be in deep shit!
    You don't know what you're talking about.

    It's OK. This isn't going to stand. Just try to be happy.
    Yes I do.

    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.
    Whoa
    Like Sledog being a fucking retard had escaped your attention until now.
  • SledogSledog Member Posts: 33,843 Standard Supporter

    Sledog said:

    HHusky said:

    Sledog said:

    HHusky said:

    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.

    Please just live with the fact that Congress caved and it will be reversed. You have no idea what evidence was presented.
    I see Remington advertising. So yes I have seen what would be considered "evidence".

    If someone steals your Prius and runs someone over your gonna be in deep shit!
    You don't know what you're talking about.

    It's OK. This isn't going to stand. Just try to be happy.
    Yes I do.

    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.
    Whoa
    If they can sue a federally protected industry how do you think it'll go for an industry the feds say is illegal?
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 105,790 Founders Club
    Sledog said:

    Sledog said:

    HHusky said:

    Sledog said:

    HHusky said:

    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.

    Please just live with the fact that Congress caved and it will be reversed. You have no idea what evidence was presented.
    I see Remington advertising. So yes I have seen what would be considered "evidence".

    If someone steals your Prius and runs someone over your gonna be in deep shit!
    You don't know what you're talking about.

    It's OK. This isn't going to stand. Just try to be happy.
    Yes I do.

    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.
    Whoa
    If they can sue a federally protected industry how do you think it'll go for an industry the feds say is illegal?
    I understood your point

    But some things cross the line here
  • pawzpawz Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 20,932 Founders Club

    Sledog said:

    Sledog said:

    HHusky said:

    Sledog said:

    HHusky said:

    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.

    Please just live with the fact that Congress caved and it will be reversed. You have no idea what evidence was presented.
    I see Remington advertising. So yes I have seen what would be considered "evidence".

    If someone steals your Prius and runs someone over your gonna be in deep shit!
    You don't know what you're talking about.

    It's OK. This isn't going to stand. Just try to be happy.
    Yes I do.

    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.
    Whoa
    If they can sue a federally protected industry how do you think it'll go for an industry the feds say is illegal?
    I understood your point

    But some things cross the line here
    Sleedoog is JeffSessionsFS
Sign In or Register to comment.