• Top Shot Throwback Contest - Only a Few Hours Left To Enter!

    Tell us about your best shot or proudest moment on the range this past year! Winner gets new limited edition Hide merch. Remember, subscribers have a better chance of winning!

    Join contest Subscribe

SCOTUS, WUT?

WaltHer

WaltHer

Felipe Forevuh
Full Member
Minuteman
Aug 26, 2009
1,649
2,725
hillbilluns, montucky
#1
  • Like
Reactions: Aries256
#2
That stock photo in that article. Some interesting looking Remingtons.

106111217-gettyimages-494930238.jpg
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 360Precision2, Crang, Huskydriver and 3 others
#3
So we can now sue the car makers for drunk drivers crashing into folks?

And I guess by the same logic we can sue car makers for everything they are worth for aggressive drivers causing crashes? I mean every car commercial I see seems to show aggressive driving and excessive speeds....

Maybe if we could sue the courts & judges for crimes criminals commit when they get released from prison or put out on bail, the courts might see the error of that line of stupid reasoning?

Those families are being just greedy stooges. Happily trying to soak someone else who had nothing to do with their loss for money because the actual criminal is dead & broke and they don't care if they destroy the country, start a civil war and end our rights to get their filthy undeserved payout.

How about they sue the state that refused to lockup the nutjob even when his mother was begging them to before he murdered her?
How about sue the government for purposely refusing to provide security and guards at schools or allowing anyone else to protect themselves?
 
  • Like
Reactions: TACC, armorpl8chikn, AMGtuned and 8 others
#10
The sad fact is that a lot of people don't understand or simple care about the implications of these decisions. They're happy to not read or watch the news because it would make them depressed so they go about their day scrolling through social media or playing Pokemon Go into traffic. Me personally, I think social media represents a significant threat to our society, more so then most people would give it credit for. It's unfortunate but I've seen social media become a news source for most people, ignoring the fact that past history has shown just how out of context and incorrect this "source" can be.

In my opinion, if the public at large wants to do something about gun violence then we have to go deeper then attack an inanimate object and law abiding citizens. I think the approach would have to be multifaceted but in general looking into the addiction to social media, the over prescription of psychotropic drugs, and how our society is generally abandoning the principle of family. Granted, these are pie in the sky thoughts because it'd mean going after the technology and pharmaceutical industries as well as society itself and that kind of introspection would probably be viewed as just too hard, so let's go after the low hanging fruit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: armorpl8chikn, SilentStalkr and WaltHer
#12
Trigger Monkey said:
The sad fact is that a lot of people don't understand or simple care about the implications of these decisions. They're happy to not read or watch the news because it would make them depressed so they go about their day scrolling through social media or playing Pokemon Go into traffic. Me personally, I think social media represents a significant threat to our society, more so then most people would give it credit for. It's unfortunate but I've seen social media become a news source for most people, ignoring the fact that past history has shown just how out of context and incorrect this "source" can be.

In my opinion, if the public at large wants to do something about gun violence then we have to go deeper then attack an inanimate object and law abiding citizens. I think the approach would have to be multifaceted but in general looking into the addiction to social media, the over prescription of psychotropic drugs, and how our society is generally abandoning the principle of family. Granted, these are pie in the sky thoughts because it'd mean going after the technology and pharmaceutical industries as well as society itself and that kind of introspection would probably be viewed as just too hard, so let's go after the low hanging fruit.
Click to expand...
1 out of 100 people give a shit about the bigger picture, or the implications of anything 5 years down the road.
wake up, work, go home, drink a 6 pack, go to sleep, repeat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tazman and x_789
#17
SilentStalkr said:
Exactly what I’ve been saying. I have no idea how much more push you need. Maybe we are there people just don’t know how to mobilize and act?
Click to expand...
Pffft most people are either keyboard warriors, or the type that will sit and bitch until the libtard SS are knocking on their door. Then its too late.
 
#18
See this lunatic fanatic below?
john-brown-809x1024.jpg


"These men are all talk. What we need is action—action!" - John Brown

He got into a political argument with his neighbor (who didn't and had never owned a slave) and hacked him to death with a saber in front of the man's wife and children. After that he led a mob who murdered five pro-slavery citizens (none of whom also had ever owned a slave). He fled justice that time, but it ended up finding him. He got himself, his sons, and some other retards killed trying to start a slave rebellion.

You know what? He was absolutely right about slavery. Which makes him no less of a lunatic fanatic, and is completely irrelevant as to his just fate at the end of a Federal rope. Hung for treason, murder, and insurrection. Kind of ironic that Federal troops were singing his name just a few years after their side executed him.


and...

You're wrong about the Schutzstaffel. Opening fire (through your door) when they knock on it in the middle of the night is exactly, precisely the right time for violence. If everyone opens fire when they come for you there won't be any of them left, and even if there are they won't be knocking on any doors in the middle of the night when it's sure to get them killed...
 
  • Like
Reactions: armorpl8chikn
#19
I would like to hear their reasoning to not uphold the "no liability for firearms manufacturer" law. Uncertain to the exact name of the law yet would like to know how it possibly could not apply here.

Pretty sure Remington did not sell him the firearm either.
 
#22
Aries256 said:
Scotus should be ashamed of themselves. Abandoning their oath of office. Disgusting.
Click to expand...

Better yet, why don’t some armed men match up there and remind them of their oaths! I get it, this is a feel good measure. Lots of people upset about what happened, as any human should be, but you cannot legislate based on feelings, period. They have now opened a huge can of worms. Any company at this point could be sued for anything that their product was used for that resulted in someone’s injury or death. That’s scary. Uhaul rents a truck someone uses to run over a bunch of people and bam they going to be liable. McDonalds hot coffee used in a disputed where people were intentionally burned they going to be liable. Ford sells a mustang to some stupid kid that goes racing on the interstate and causes an accident as a result, Ford is sued. Where is individual responsibility? I swear I live in some asinine alternate universe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aries256
#28
W54/XM-388 said:
So we can now sue the car makers for drunk drivers crashing into folks?

And I guess by the same logic we can sue car makers for everything they are worth for aggressive drivers causing crashes? I mean every car commercial I see seems to show aggressive driving and excessive speeds....

Maybe if we could sue the courts & judges for crimes criminals commit when they get released from prison or put out on bail, the courts might see the error of that line of stupid reasoning?

Those families are being just greedy stooges. Happily trying to soak someone else who had nothing to do with their loss for money because the actual criminal is dead & broke and they don't care if they destroy the country, start a civil war and end our rights to get their filthy undeserved payout.

How about they sue the state that refused to lockup the nutjob even when his mother was begging them to before he murdered her?
How about sue the government for purposely refusing to provide security and guards at schools or allowing anyone else to protect themselves?
Click to expand...
Can I sue Mitsubishi for Pearl Harbor?
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Tazman, Aries256, SilentStalkr and 2 others
#29
This is some stupid leftist shit

So the police can totally destroy a man's house in Colorado, there is no question the police did it

www.usatoday.com

Police destroyed an innocent man's home during an arrest. But he's owed nothing, court rules

A Colorado town owes an innocent man nothing, according to a court ruling, though police destroyed his home while trying to arrest a suspect
www.usatoday.com

and they are not responsible for any damages at all?? even though they physically did all the destruction on purpose and admitted to it

But Remington is somehow going to he held responsible for damages that they had absolutely no involvement with.

This country has completely lost all common sense
 
  • Like
Reactions: rlarsen462, Aries256, SilentStalkr and 3 others
#30
I’m Gonna sue my gun manufacturer, my scope manufacturer and my ammo manufacturer because my 5MOA groups cannot possibly be MY fault!
 
#34
So, can I sue the government and arms makers for having to sell my property taking a loss because of something I was in no way affiliated with? Last I checked it was a constitutionally protected right and this mess is trying to circumvent what is essentially a God given right. Nope, America gets what it deserves. Nobody has the stones that the founders did.
 
#35
eca7891 said:
I would like to hear their reasoning to not uphold the "no liability for firearms manufacturer" law. Uncertain to the exact name of the law yet would like to know how it possibly could not apply here.

Pretty sure Remington did not sell him the firearm either.
Click to expand...
"An exception in the law, provided in cases where the gun manufacturer knowingly violated the law through its marketing practices, paved the way for the families to launch their suit."

"The families sued the makers of the gun that was used, an AR-15-style weapon made by Remington, in 2014, alleging that the company's marketing of the weapon inspired Adam Lanza to commit the massacre."
 
#37
That exception sounds really vague.

Did Remington literally state as a part of its marketing campaign, “Hey 18-24 year old males. Buy the Bushmaster AR-15: best AR for committing a school shooting!”

If so, I suppose I could understand why they could be partially liable. Failing that, it’s still no different then holding GM, Ford or any other auto manufacturer because someone used one of their products to commit vehicular homicide.

This should have been thrown out a long time ago and certainly thrown out by SCOUS in this ruling.

Now it will probably end up at the Supreme Court again after Remington is found liable at the trial court level by activist judges.

Fucking ridiculous
 
#40
WaltHer said:
"An exception in the law, provided in cases where the gun manufacturer knowingly violated the law through its marketing practices, paved the way for the families to launch their suit."

"The families sued the makers of the gun that was used, an AR-15-style weapon made by Remington, in 2014, alleging that the company's marketing of the weapon inspired Adam Lanza to commit the massacre."
Click to expand...

and I know that logic and facts have very little to do with cases being settled these days, but Lanza was a mental case, officially diagnosed and documented problems

www.newsweek.com

Sandy Hook Gunman Chose School Because He Was Pedophile

In nearly 1,500 pages of newly released documents, the FBI details its thorough investigation into the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com

I don't see how any amount of marketing done to 'normal' people can be blamed for how a mentally deranged individual would interpret it.

Due to mental illness, advertising meant for normal people cannot be held responsible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: oneshot86 and Aries256
#43
Slash0311 said:
Its not about a win or loss. Its about forcing gun manufacturers to spend millions upon millions fighting these types of lawsuits.

In the slim chance the left wins, its slowly eroding or rights and we let it happen. Death by a thousand cuts.
Click to expand...
Not to mention trying to intimidate other firearm manufacturers while they're at it. FTG.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aries256
#45
nn8734 said:
That exception sounds really vague.

Did Remington literally state as a part of its marketing campaign, “Hey 18-24 year old males. Buy the Bushmaster AR-15: best AR for committing a school shooting!”

If so, I suppose I could understand why they could be partially liable. Failing that, it’s still no different then holding GM, Ford or any other auto manufacturer because someone used one of their products to commit vehicular homicide.

This should have been thrown out a long time ago and certainly thrown out by SCOUS in this ruling.

Now it will probably end up at the Supreme Court again after Remington is found liable at the trial court level by activist judges.

Fucking ridiculous
Click to expand...
And to top it off, it was his MOM who bought the weapon and ammo. The blame goes to him and HER, not Remington.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aries256
#47
WaltHer said:
"An exception in the law, provided in cases where the gun manufacturer knowingly violated the law through its marketing practices, paved the way for the families to launch their suit."

"The families sued the makers of the gun that was used, an AR-15-style weapon made by Remington, in 2014, alleging that the company's marketing of the weapon inspired Adam Lanza to commit the massacre."
Click to expand...

That is one hell of a mountain to climb.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WaltHer
#48
That's kind of how I see it as well. I'm not bent out of shape by this, because to me it seems like they're ruling on the letter of the law. They're using the exception to the law, as written, and I think the SCOTUS was just ruling that they can sue and try to prove that Remington's marketing caused the shooting.

I agree that's like a quadriplegic looking up from the base of Everest. That said, maybe the law should be changed because it allows a frivolous lawsuit like this one, and true justice would be Remington counter suing the families for their legal expenses. Put the fuck up or shut up. The press would howl if they won, but fuck 'em.

I can see this going to court and being dismissed very quickly. If that doesn't happen then the law probably needs to be amended.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Snuby642 and SilentStalkr
#50
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PatMiles
Former Democrat Senator Bob Menendez Sobs in Court as Judge Sentences Him to 11 YEARS in Prison For Bribery!
Replies
23
Views
1K
DarnYankeeUSMC
DarnYankeeUSMC
U
Biden's Pardons
Replies
87
Views
3K
sirhrmechanic
sirhrmechanic
lash
Evolution May Be Purposeful And It’s Freaking Scientists Out
Replies
152
Views
7K
lash
lash
_Windrider_
Well the Supreme Court just fucked us via sandy hook
Replies
43
Views
2K
Vamike9
Vamike9
steve podleski
"Here's how a wildly outgunned US Navy pilot outfoxed one of the Soviet Union's best jets, scoring a string of kills in a legendary dogfight"
Replies
3
Views
1K
acudaowner
acudaowner
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts