Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We want to see your skills! Post a video between now and November 1st showing what you've learned from Frank's lessons and 3 people will be selected to win a free shirt. Good luck everyone!
Create a channel Learn moreThis. It is a tool. No better or worse than the person using it.No weapon is solely designed to kill people.
They are designed to function reliably and shoot bullets accurately.
Use is decided by the person using it.
This isn’t correct. A hammer is a tool it is designed to hit a nail. A hammer can be used to kill.No weapon is solely designed to kill people.
They are designed to function reliably and shoot bullets accurately.
Use is decided by the person using it.
This isn’t correct. A hammer is a tool it is designed to hit a nail. A hammer can be used to kill.This. It is a tool. No better or worse than the person using it.
What are the deaths each year by stabbing? Oh, yeah, but knives were only designed to kill.
Despite that annoying little forged and fire guy... they are tools too.
Sirhr
That’s incorrect and they have hearings already still scheduled out through AugustHi,
Except the fact Bankruptcy court finalized its' verdict a couple months ago....
Sincerely,
Theis
I get what you're saying but that seems like some pretty twisted legalese logic to me.This isn’t correct. A hammer is a tool it is designed to hit a nail. A hammer can be used to kill.
A firearm is a tool. It is designed to kill. It can be used to shoot paper and steel.
The lawsuit is predicated on the violation of state statute in regards to how it was marketed.
it’s about the fact that it was in fact used as described by the manufacturer. The question is and the defense is how is that in violation of the state fare trade and advertising laws
Literally the point. Create a convoluted legal argument that is difficult to unpack. That means high expense to fight and makes it easier for a settlement to be a better business decision especially for a bankruptcy courtI get what you're saying but that seems like some pretty twisted legalese logic to me.
That’s incorrect and they have hearings already still scheduled out through August
These comments are killing me because clearly a lot of people who have strong feelings don’t have an understanding of what’s happening here.
yes we all know that huge groups of people want to shut down the firearms industry and if possibly pull all the firearms in this country. Fact
many of the the parents and people of the state after Sandy hook were outraged and looking for away to accomplish this
Fact
the law suit is not about the miss use of the the fire arm. As I. The example of going after Budweiser for a drunk driver. The law suite hinges on the marketing of the company that basically asserts that the company was in fact aware that this is a weapon solely designed to kill people and effectively romantizes the “lone wolf” narrative in violation of state fare trade laws.
Remington is in bankruptcy court. An on going liability law suite needs to be reported on the books it is an out standing liability. There fore any good bankruptcy hearing is going to look at that liability and try to extinguish it. Remington or what May become should we say “new Remington” is trying to purge all of its outstanding liabilities so that it can start clean so yea they want this gone and don’t want to fight it for the next 10yrs which would make it impossible for them to reopen
Problem--he who used it didn't purchase it. Nor is there any evidence that he acted on belief of that marketing. Its circular logic.This isn’t correct. A hammer is a tool it is designed to hit a nail. A hammer can be used to kill.
A firearm is a tool. It is designed to kill. It can be used to shoot paper and steel.
The lawsuit is predicated on the violation of state statute in regards to how it was marketed.
it’s about the fact that it was in fact used as described by the manufacturer. The question is and the defense is how is that in violation of the state fare trade and advertising laws
Are you smoking crack?Just like turning the red flag laws around on the snakes that passed them, start using this precedent to go after alcohol and/or car manufacturers for injury to any family members that are hurt. Or even better, bring a suit against the fda for the food pyramid fucking up everyone’s health. Start exposing the clown show courts for what they are
However, the gun was already illegal in California. The seller dropped the sale of the gun (the WASR) in California and complied with all laws. And the shooter broke the law.Problem--he who used it didn't purchase it. Nor is there any evidence that he acted on belief of that marketing. Its circular logic.
Also this logic will sink anyone who makes a self-defense handgun.
Not good. Not good at all.
You will have more luck suing the gov than you will expecting them to police themselves, but you’re right. The idea isn’t to expect a win, the idea is to clog the kangaroo courts with bullshit so everyone else can see what bullshit it really isAre you smoking crack?
good luck suing .gov
And the left loves them some double standards. None of that gonna work ^
Im confused---sandy hook was in CT-- its been a dayHowever, the gun was already illegal in California. The seller dropped the sale of the gun (the WASR) in California and complied with all laws. And the shooter broke the law.
Based on California Law, the gun could never possibly have BEEN in California. Because it was illegal. So the manufacturers liability should end at the border. When they complied with California law.
Gun laws prevent illegal gun use. Therefore can't blame gun that can't be used... because there is a law against it being used.
Sirhr
I was referring to the Garlic Festival WASR/Century Arms one. We now have two stupid convoluted legal arguments running... proving that Shakespeare was right...Im confused---sandy hook was in CT-- its been a day
This isn’t correct. A hammer is a tool it is designed to hit a nail. A hammer can be used to kill.
A firearm is a tool. It is designed to kill. It can be used to shoot paper and steel.
The lawsuit is predicated on the violation of state statute in regards to how it was marketed.
it’s about the fact that it was in fact used as described by the manufacturer. The question is and the defense is how is that in violation of the state fare trade and advertising laws
What other “shooting” had so many inconsistencies and then. They bulldoze the school
Bullshit.
True as much as paddock was the VEGAS shooter
"In a 2018 memo prepared for the trial of Mexican drug lord Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán, an ATF analyst described how 40 of the Sinaloa Cartel's guns seized by Colombian authorities had been converted by Century Arms for sale in the U.S." ...and then given to them by the ATF.
"In a 2018 memo prepared for the trial of Mexican drug lord Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán, an ATF analyst described how 40 of the Sinaloa Cartel's guns seized by Colombian authorities had been converted by Century Arms for sale in the U.S." ...and then given to them by the ATF.
I don’t care if it’s advertised to kill children and puppies, the add didn’t pull the trigger, folks are allergic to self responsibility
The add made me do it judge!
but that’s not what’s happening here.
this is a lawsuit of a state statute.
for example and it may have changed I moved 8 years ago but in Michigan there was a law on pricing items for sale. So you go to a grocery store and the item is marked $1. They ring you up and charge you $2. You were entitled to 5x the difference.
It was meant to be a penalty to the store. Yes a potentially simple over sight but the idea was that the penalty needed to be severe enough to make it a priority for the store and to account for the fact than many would not have noticed they got ripped off.
this is a law suit exploiting an advertising law. The law suit exists because some lawyers looked for any path they could find to disrupt the industry.
The settlement offer exists because the company is severely financially compromised and in bankruptcy and therefore wants to include every single potential liability that’s out there to extinguish them all at once for good