Join INGunOwners For Free
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 19 of 19
  1. #11
    Master AmmoManAaron's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by wakproductions View Post
    Hey don't panic guys. From what I'm reading, it seems SCOTUS only turned down a motion to dismiss the case. The case will proceed and arguments will be heard. Remington can still probably win, and force the opposition to cover legal fees.
    Under the PLCAA, is should have been dismissed. That said, I hope you are right about Remington being able to win and recover the legal fees.
    "2016: The year that hackers became more trusted than government or reporters."

  2. #12
    Grandmaster

    User Info Menu

    -----------------------------------------------
    Done, done, and Iím on to the next one...
    -----------------------------------------------

  3. #13
    Expert russc2542's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Ziggidy View Post
    Can Remington turn around and take legal action against the criminal and their family? Using their product in a manner that is dangerous to others? In addition, can they take legal action against the local school and such, claiming the counselors failed to prevent an individual from utilizing their product in a manner not intended and cause death?

    When something is used in a manner it was not intended for, in spite of warnings, what crime was committed?
    That's far far too logical for Joe Public. Of course not because Remington's the bad guy. They're a gun mfr and guns are evil therefore they are evil. It's like trying to convince a devout religious person their god doesn't exist. Of course it does because that's how the world works.

    These things are not based in logic and thus cannot be won by logical arguments. That's where we are at a disadvantage. They can do or say whatever and have little to lose by being wrong because they have the backing of the sheeple masses that agree. They don't have to be right, they just have to agree.

    Like the stereotype about arguing with your female significant other. she's mad so you're wrong. It doesn't matter if you're right, you're still wrong. If you ARE right, that just makes her more upset and therefor you more wrong. If you argue about it you're a bad person just for arguing. If you have evidence or, god forbid can prove it, then you're an even worse person deliberately arguing with her because you hate her and it's irrelevant because you're still a horrible person for arguing.

    yes, I speak from experience. no, we aren't together anymore. My wife, on the other hand, bless her heart, sometimes spontaneously bursts out laughing (or laugh-crying if she's upset) out of the blue because she had a whole conversation/argument with me in her head, I was right, and she's logical enough to recognize it but is still frustrated by it. Then because I'm curious what our talk was about, she has to tell me both sides while I nod in agreement with myself-in-her-head.
    Last edited by russc2542; 2 Weeks Ago at 11:19.

  4. #14
    Grandmaster

    User Info Menu

    Guy Relford is discussing this on his radio show right now.

    https://tunein.com/radio/WIBC-931-s52361/
    -----------------------------------------------
    Done, done, and Iím on to the next one...
    -----------------------------------------------

  5. #15
    Master NyleRN's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    It's my understanding that Remington is being sued not because they made the gun but because they advertised their weapons as tools to kill. There's a difference there. Jeep can't be liable if some drunk driver kills someone in a Cherokee. But if Jeep advertises their product to not only crawl over rocks but can crawl over people too, then someone proceeds to run over a group of people in a Jeep, then they can be liable. This is the angle that Soto is trying to attack
    Last edited by NyleRN; 2 Weeks Ago at 17:59.

  6. #16
    Da PinkFather jedi's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    And the ad is something along the lines of "recover your mancard" which was implied that if you buy their ar15 you can get your man card back.

    Funny how the killer did not even buy the gun. A female, his mom, actually bought it.

  7. #17
    Grandmaster DoggyDaddy's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by jedi View Post
    And the ad is something along the lines of "recover your mancard" which was implied that if you buy their ar15 you can get your man card back.

    Funny how the killer did not even buy the gun. A female, his mom, actually bought it.
    Are you assuming his mom's gender??? *TRIGGERED*

  8. #18
    Da PinkFather jedi's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    His mom was a biological female.
    I wrote female because the colt ad the group suing said it was targeting males to buy a weapon of war in order to affirm their manhood via their man card.

    Yet the owner of the rifle used was actually a female.

  9. #19
    Plinker

    User Info Menu

    It had to do with some technicality about the way it was advertised.


Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Button Dodge