The articles about this are not being as specific about the nature of why Remington settled as they should be - typically journalism today. Nevertheless, this outcome is dangerous for 2A rights, yes, but not much different - in fact, quite the same - as cigarette company liability as a consequence of their advertising. In particular cig advertising that eluded to a smoker being cool or a better man/woman, which existed for decades and which they are not allowed to do anymore (never mind the advertising that effectively stated there was no risk). If there was a large anti-car culture - and that is growing - there likely already would have been successful settlements with companies like Porsche that sell "streetable race cars" that are far more capable than any legal limit. Expect to see lawsuits like that toward car companies going forward, I suspect. In fact, I'd bet the start with Tesla and their vehicles being able to accelerate so quickly - faster than almost all ICE super cars.
It's unfortunate that we live in a society that avoids and litigates away the individual responsibility necessary for a society to function absent tyrannical overrule but, at the same time, a firearm manufacturer selling any type of firearm does not need to advertise anything but its features to sell plenty of them. I don't know what the advertisement was that put Remington in a corner, but hence forth they'll all have to be careful.
www.wsj.com
