Gun Control 2022 (IV) - Gun Rights, Control, & Government

[Kernen]

Incidentally, does anybody have any idea what damages are alleged? I cant find the initial complaint.

[Pax Nerdvana]

It's a stupid lawsuit. It's like suing a car company because the driver crashed a car they made through driver error.

[Kowani]

Bernie Calls mandatory buybacks unconstitutional.

[Gig em Aggies]

Bernie Calls mandatory buybacks unconstitutional.

finally something smart that comes from someone inside the beltway

[Asle Leopolka]

Bernie Calls mandatory buybacks unconstitutional.

finally something smart that comes from someone inside the beltway

Right? He may be a whackjob socialist who doesn't understand economics, but he's always been pro-gun.

OOC: FACO17

[Kernen]

It's a stupid lawsuit. It's like suing a car company because the driver crashed a car they made through driver error.

That's also not what the suit is about.

[Israeli Empiratic Commonwealth]

The 2nd amendment does allow guns for both militia and citizens, but that does not mean that gun control isn't necessary - because it definitely is. Guns should mostly be trusted in the hands of authorities, such as police officers and soldiers, but not just anyone. Also, authorities shouldn't be able to get away with as much as they do. Having guns just sitting around anybody's home is a disaster waiting to happen - and tons of disasters have already happened that way.

I wonder who’s killed more innocent Americans, come civilian gun owners or the government.

That would be foreign governments my friend. Revolution to Vietnam innocent Americans were killed. And the US Government namely during the civil war.

[Israeli Empiratic Commonwealth]

Bernie Calls mandatory buybacks unconstitutional.

Wow. Why do I feel he says this now that Trump has talked about it.

[Pax Nerdvana]

Bernie Calls mandatory buybacks unconstitutional.

Wow. Why do I feel he says this now that Trump has talked about it.

To try and gain support from people like us?

It's a stupid lawsuit. It's like suing a car company because the driver crashed a car they made through driver error.

That's also not what the suit is about.

I'm not a lawyer, so I don't always understand a lawsuit. Even if my understanding is wrong, it's still a silly lawsuit.

[Grinning Dragon]

finally something smart that comes from someone inside the beltway

Right? He may be a whackjob socialist who doesn't understand economics, but he's always been pro-gun.

OOC: FACO17

bernie is NOT pro gun, just another shitbrick.

[Grinning Dragon]

Wow. Why do I feel he says this now that Trump has talked about it.

To try and gain support from people like us?

That's also not what the suit is about.

I'm not a lawyer, so I don't always understand a lawsuit. Even if my understanding is wrong, it's still a silly lawsuit.

The lawsuit involves Remingtion's advertisement. The claim is that Remington marketed a firearm that is dangerous to the public and should had known crazy's would buy into their marketing and buy one of their products. Now since the USSC has turned down CERT (takes 4 justices to grant) it goes back to a lower court where the case will be heard. This is more of a 1st Amendment than it is a 2nd Amendment. Let's hope the jury is smart and rejects this frivolous lawsuit brought against Remington.

[Zurkerx]

Bernie Calls mandatory buybacks unconstitutional.

It's a smart move on his part: if he becomes the eventual nominee, they can't paint him as a gun grabber. Not that they'll try but Bernie if I recall is somewhat more softer on guns despite his recent stances.

[Pax Nerdvana]

To try and gain support from people like us?
I'm not a lawyer, so I don't always understand a lawsuit. Even if my understanding is wrong, it's still a silly lawsuit.

The lawsuit involves Remingtion's advertisement. The claim is that Remington marketed a firearm that is dangerous to the public and should had known crazy's would buy into their marketing and buy one of their products. Now since the USSC has turned down CERT (takes 4 justices to grant) it goes back to a lower court where the case will be heard. This is more of a 1st Amendment than it is a 2nd Amendment. Let's hope the jury is smart and rejects this frivolous lawsuit brought against Remington.

Let's hope so.

[Gig em Aggies]

The lawsuit involves Remingtion's advertisement. The claim is that Remington marketed a firearm that is dangerous to the public and should had known crazy's would buy into their marketing and buy one of their products. Now since the USSC has turned down CERT (takes 4 justices to grant) it goes back to a lower court where the case will be heard. This is more of a 1st Amendment than it is a 2nd Amendment. Let's hope the jury is smart and rejects this frivolous lawsuit brought against Remington.

Let's hope so.

I just saw this and boy was I mad how is it that people get into an uproar when guns are involved but don't carry that anger over to alcohol or tobacco or gang violence and illicit drugs? I just hope the judge in this case laughs them out of court plus how are they gonna prove that Remington is at fault when its not?

[Grinning Dragon]

Let's hope so.

I just saw this and boy was I mad how is it that people get into an uproar when guns are involved but don't carry that anger over to alcohol or tobacco or gang violence and illicit drugs? I just hope the judge in this case laughs them out of court plus how are they gonna prove that Remington is at fault when its not?

Yeah, this case doesn't make sense at all other than cancerous low life lawyers who see a company with $$$ to hurt and using emotional parents to drive this case.
Then there is the fact that loony toon adam, killed his mother to gain access to the firearm safe, how is any of this Remington's responsibility?

[Kernen]

I just saw this and boy was I mad how is it that people get into an uproar when guns are involved but don't carry that anger over to alcohol or tobacco or gang violence and illicit drugs? I just hope the judge in this case laughs them out of court plus how are they gonna prove that Remington is at fault when its not?

Yeah, this case doesn't make sense at all other than cancerous low life lawyers who see a company with $$$ to hurt and using emotional parents to drive this case.
Then there is the fact that loony toon adam, killed his mother to gain access to the firearm safe, how is any of this Remington's responsibility?

Well, if it is found that Remington's advertisement scheme was targeted at exacerbating the unstable, they are at least partially liable. I would dearly love to see the plaintiff's complaint and see what damages they're alleging.

[Crockerland]

finally something smart that comes from someone inside the beltway

Right? He may be a whackjob socialist who doesn't understand economics, but he's always been pro-gun.

Bernie Sanders:

• Already publicly said he supports a buy-back at the clown debates.
• voted against CCW reciprocity, to make sure if you cross a state line with a legally owned and licensed gun your life is ruined with a criminal conviction and you're sent to prison so your family can go homeless without their head of household, more than once.
• Voiced his support for New Zealand banning all semi-automatic weapons.
• Lied about the existence of a "gun show loophole".
• Said we need to ban "assault weapons" (black rifles).
• Said he would ban "high-capacity magazines".
• Praised Moms Demand Action and Everytown.
• Supported illegal red flag law proposals to terrorize and kill gun owners with no due process.

He's a million miles away from anything that could even be mistaken for being moderate. Suggesting he's pro-gun is fucking laughable. He is a fanatical anti-gun extremist.

[Grinning Dragon]

Yeah, this case doesn't make sense at all other than cancerous low life lawyers who see a company with $$$ to hurt and using emotional parents to drive this case.
Then there is the fact that loony toon adam, killed his mother to gain access to the firearm safe, how is any of this Remington's responsibility?

Well, if it is found that Remington's advertisement scheme was targeted at exacerbating the unstable, they are at least partially liable. I would dearly love to see the plaintiff's complaint and see what damages they're alleging.

While I understand someone or group within Remington signs off on marketing directions from a contracted media firm, the very notion of said marketing drive is to everyone, eyeballs are the currency they are after, after all, so again I don't see how one or the other is culpable in the events that lead up to sandy hook, it is purely a subjective mostly built on bullshit suit.
The only one at fault is the loony toon shitbrick.

[Asle Leopolka]

Right? He may be a whackjob socialist who doesn't understand economics, but he's always been pro-gun.

Bernie Sanders:

• Already publicly said he supports a buy-back at the clown debates.
• voted against CCW reciprocity, to make sure if you cross a state line with a legally owned and licensed gun your life is ruined with a criminal conviction and you're sent to prison so your family can go homeless without their head of household, more than once.
• Voiced his support for New Zealand banning all semi-automatic weapons.
• Lied about the existence of a "gun show loophole".
• Said we need to ban "assault weapons" (black rifles).
• Said he would ban "high-capacity magazines".
• Praised Moms Demand Action and Everytown.
• Supported illegal red flag law proposals to terrorize and kill gun owners with no due process.

He's a million miles away from anything that could even be mistaken for being moderate. Suggesting he's pro-gun is fucking laughable. He is a fanatical anti-gun extremist.

I'll see myself out

[Pax Nerdvana]

Right? He may be a whackjob socialist who doesn't understand economics, but he's always been pro-gun.

Bernie Sanders:

• Already publicly said he supports a buy-back at the clown debates.
• voted against CCW reciprocity, to make sure if you cross a state line with a legally owned and licensed gun your life is ruined with a criminal conviction and you're sent to prison so your family can go homeless without their head of household, more than once.
• Voiced his support for New Zealand banning all semi-automatic weapons.
• Lied about the existence of a "gun show loophole".
• Said we need to ban "assault weapons" (black rifles).
• Said he would ban "high-capacity magazines".
• Praised Moms Demand Action and Everytown.
• Supported illegal red flag law proposals to terrorize and kill gun owners with no due process.

He's a million miles away from anything that could even be mistaken for being moderate. Suggesting he's pro-gun is fucking laughable. He is a fanatical anti-gun extremist.

Hence why I don't trust any politicians. At all.

[The Two Jerseys]

Yeah, this case doesn't make sense at all other than cancerous low life lawyers who see a company with $$$ to hurt and using emotional parents to drive this case.
Then there is the fact that loony toon adam, killed his mother to gain access to the firearm safe, how is any of this Remington's responsibility?

Well, if it is found that Remington's advertisement scheme was targeted at exacerbating the unstable, they are at least partially liable. I would dearly love to see the plaintiff's complaint and see what damages they're alleging.

Except he's not the one who bought the rifle...

[Kernen]

Well, if it is found that Remington's advertisement scheme was targeted at exacerbating the unstable, they are at least partially liable. I would dearly love to see the plaintiff's complaint and see what damages they're alleging.

Except he's not the one who bought the rifle...

And yet, if the court finds Remington's advertisement scheme was targeted at exacerbated the unstable, they will be held liable. Not necessarily for the same damages as if they were liable for Wrongful Death, but probably for the statutory damages permitted under the consumer protection law.

[Gun Manufacturers]

To try and gain support from people like us?
I'm not a lawyer, so I don't always understand a lawsuit. Even if my understanding is wrong, it's still a silly lawsuit.

The lawsuit involves Remingtion's advertisement. The claim is that Remington marketed a firearm that is dangerous to the public and should had known crazy's would buy into their marketing and buy one of their products. Now since the USSC has turned down CERT (takes 4 justices to grant) it goes back to a lower court where the case will be heard. This is more of a 1st Amendment than it is a 2nd Amendment. Let's hope the jury is smart and rejects this frivolous lawsuit brought against Remington.

The thing is, the shooter didn't buy it, his mother did. He stole it from her and murdered her. So the claim that Remington's marketing is why the shooter chose that weapon makes no sense.

[Kernen]

The lawsuit involves Remingtion's advertisement. The claim is that Remington marketed a firearm that is dangerous to the public and should had known crazy's would buy into their marketing and buy one of their products. Now since the USSC has turned down CERT (takes 4 justices to grant) it goes back to a lower court where the case will be heard. This is more of a 1st Amendment than it is a 2nd Amendment. Let's hope the jury is smart and rejects this frivolous lawsuit brought against Remington.

The thing is, the shooter didn't buy it, his mother did. He stole it from her and murdered her. So the claim that Remington's marketing is why the shooter chose that weapon makes no sense.

Not if they allege the arguments caused the shooter to target that model and not something else.

But yeah, its a really, really far fetched idea. This is some Palsgraf level of But For.

[Gun Manufacturers]

The thing is, the shooter didn't buy it, his mother did. He stole it from her and murdered her. So the claim that Remington's marketing is why the shooter chose that weapon makes no sense.

Not if they allege the arguments caused the shooter to target that model and not something else.

But yeah, its a really, really far fetched idea. This is some Palsgraf level of But For.

I saw the advertising that the plaintiffs are alleging caused the shooting. It doesn't make sense, unless his mother (the one that purchased the rifle, and who owned it) was secretly a man wanting to have her man card re-issued.