Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, November 12, 2019

The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal by Remington over the wrongful death lawsuit brought by 10 families affected by the Sandy Hook massacre.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

But the NRA spent all that money buying them off! That's Un-American. Trump'll fix it. Don't worry.

#1 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-11-12 11:20 AM | Reply

Wait, what?

-The Left

#2 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-11-12 11:21 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Marketing fetish weapons to weapons fetishists might get a similar treatment as marketing nicotine and alcohol to children and teens?

#3 | Posted by hamburglar at 2019-11-12 11:21 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Sure, have the lawsuit. But it's not the weapons fault these kids are dead. It's the person who pulled the trigger.

Your dead kids do not outweigh my right to own a weapon.

Get over it.

#4 | Posted by boaz at 2019-11-12 11:22 AM | Reply

Not sure about this ...

Not from a firearm perspective.

But a product development perspective.

Can we hold automobile manufacture liable for wrongful death because the vehicle can go over the speed limit?

Can we hold wine makers liable for drinking and driving?

Can we hold game manufactures liable for teens dying at their keyboards?

Meaning people use products in unlawful ways, does that make the product manufacture liable?

#5 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-11-12 11:22 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Marketing fetish weapons to weapons fetishists might get a similar treatment as marketing nicotine and alcohol to children and teens?
#3 | POSTED BY HAMBURGLAR

Go on .. I am not familiar with these ..... I don't see firearm marketing, nor nicotine. But I do see beer commercials.

#6 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-11-12 11:23 AM | Reply

You are wrong Boaz. In any civilized nation on Earth, the right of my children to live completely outweighs your fetishist desire to own a particular type of weapon. And only a moral abomination would say otherwise.

#7 | Posted by moder8 at 2019-11-12 11:25 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

Joe camel, UV vodka, snus tobacco, Four Loko, vaping... Marketing guns and gear that look like military grade to militias that fantasize about fighting against government takeover and whose members go rogue and end up shooting up places (more studies need to be done, but the NRA fights any kind of research into the truth behind gun-nut psychology)

#8 | Posted by hamburglar at 2019-11-12 11:30 AM | Reply

You are wrong Boaz. In any civilized nation on Earth, the right of my children to live completely outweighs your fetishist desire to own a particular type of weapon. And only a moral abomination would say otherwise.

#7 | POSTED BY MODER8

Take it up with the 2nd Amendment.

#9 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-12 11:33 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I'm going to try in vain to preempt all the "hurr durr it's a legal product" comments from our resident gun freaks.

Connecticut has a state law on the books (Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act) which in part, confers a right of action for personal injury damages on anyone who is harmed by marketing which promotes the use of a product for criminal purposes. The Connecticut Supreme Court has already sided with the plaintiffs that Remington "knowingly marketed, advertised, and promoted the XM15-E2S for civilians to use to carry out offensive, military style combat missions against their perceived enemies. Such use of the XM15-E2S, or any weapon for that matter, would be illegal, and Connecticut law does not permit advertisements that promote or encourage violent, criminal behavior."

Federal law contains wide protections of gunmakers against civil suits by those harmed by gun violence, but it has an exception for cases where "a manufacturer or seller of a [firearm] knowingly violated a State...statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the [firearm]." This is precisely that case, and the suit will rightly proceed. Champions of "states rights" should be applauding.

#10 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-12 11:35 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

Advertisement

Advertisement

I guess we're now all waiting for the response from the White House bedroom.

OCU

#11 | Posted by OCUser at 2019-11-12 11:35 AM | Reply

Take it up with the 2nd Amendment.

#9 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

You talking about the one that talks about "A well-regulated militia"?

It was conservative activist judges that decided the second amendment applied to an INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms. The constitution guarantees no such thing.

#12 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-11-12 11:36 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 3

The 2nd Amendment is not an absolute right. The SCOTUS has allowed limits to gun ownership.

That's why I was interested in this case given the current SCOTUS.

#13 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-11-12 11:36 AM | Reply

This case has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. It does not attack or address the right of any person to own any firearm in any way.

What this case is about is a gunmaker's potential liability for their knowing and willful marketing of a weapon for military-style assaults to inexperienced civilians.

#14 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-12 11:40 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

In other words, if i built a truck covered in spikes and published ads telling people how great it is for bludgeoning large groups of people, that might be illegal under Connecticut law and i may be required to remunerate the families of victims when someone uses my spike truck for a rampage.

#15 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-12 11:42 AM | Reply

#15 | POSTED BY JOE

Do you have an example of a gun manufacture ad where it depicts "killing" people with its product?

I seriously have never seen a gun manufacture ad on TV, or even online.

#16 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-11-12 11:44 AM | Reply

What this case is about is a gunmaker's potential liability for their knowing and willful marketing of a weapon for military-style assaults to inexperienced civilians.
#14 | POSTED BY JOE

What about sports cars? Did you know 1/3 of Porsche GT2s are destroyed in accidents?

Alcohol, where people aren't having a good time?

Boats where the people in the ad don't where live preservers?

Planes?

#17 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-11-12 11:46 AM | Reply

Do you have an example of a gun manufacture ad where it depicts "killing" people with its product?

Not necessary that the ads go that far; it's enough that the ads promote the use of a product for criminal purposes. From the CT Supreme Court ruling:

Plaintiffs complain that the defendants unethically promoted their assault weapons for offensive, military style missions by publishing advertisements and distributing product catalogs that (1) promote the AR-15 as the uncompromising choice when you demand a rifle as mission adaptable as you are,'' (2) depict soldiers moving on patrol through jungles, armed with Bushmaster rifles, (3) feature the slogan [w]hen you need to perform under pressure, Bushmaster delivers,'' superimposed over the silhouette of a soldier holding his helmet against the backdrop of an American flag, (4) tout the military proven performance'' of firearms like the XM15-E2S, (5) promote civilian rifles as the ultimate combat weapons system,'' (6) invoke the unparalleled destructive power of their AR-15 rifles, (7) claim that the most elite branches of the United States military, including the United States Navy SEALs, the United States Army Green Berets and Army Rangers, and other special forces, have used the AR-15, and (8) depict a close-up of an AR-15 with the following slogan: Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered.''

#18 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-12 11:51 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

What about sports cars?

Are sports cars marketed for their offensive combat capabilities? If so, i and many others would agree that they would have run afoul of the Connecticut law at issue in this case.

#19 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-12 11:52 AM | Reply

Do you have an example of a gun manufacture ad where it depicts "killing" people with its product?
I seriously have never seen a gun manufacture ad on TV, or even online.

#16 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS AT 2019-11-12 11:44 AM | REPLY

They do not. The only advertisers putting ARs and mass shootings together in advertising are Gun Control ads.

#20 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-11-12 12:01 PM | Reply

AR ads are either for the hunting market, if it's an old ad the police market, if it's a modern ad the "taciticool" market which is just some guy running through random woods with blurbs about the warranties and how much crap they're happy to sell you in accessories for the dudes who play dress up.

#21 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-11-12 12:02 PM | Reply

The only advertisers putting ARs and mass shootings together in advertising are Gun Control ads.

Saying "Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered" is about as close to endorsing a product for mass shootings as you're gonna get.

#22 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-12 12:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I guess we're now all waiting for the response from the White House bubble bath.

FTFY

QFT

#23 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-11-12 12:04 PM | Reply

Can we hold automobile manufacture liable for wrongful death because the vehicle can go over the speed limit?
Can we hold wine makers liable for drinking and driving?
Can we hold game manufactures liable for teens dying at their keyboards?
Meaning people use products in unlawful ways, does that make the product manufacture liable?

Yes, those are the next steps.

#24 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-11-12 12:17 PM | Reply

Visitor,

I'm usually a slippery-slope kind of guy, but not in this case. My understanding of this case simply boils down to how the product was advertised and did said advertisements break the law. There's a reason why when drugs are marketed on TV the commercial always ends with a littany of potential side-effects. What I find amazing is that some of the side effects sound worse than what the drug is actually treating.

#25 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-12 12:20 PM | Reply

Can we hold wine makers liable for drinking and driving?

#5 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

If they, for example, put the wine in a bottle that is specifically designed to be easy to drink in a car (say, designed to fit in car cupholders) and advertise the wine as good for drinking "on the go", then I would have no problem with them being sued (and losing).

The rest of your "slippery slope" logical fallacies are similarly bunk.

#26 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-11-12 12:25 PM | Reply

Can we hold automobile manufacture liable for wrongful death because the vehicle can go over the speed limit?

Are automobiles marketed for the express purpose of driving fast and killing people? If so, please, sue away in Connecticut.

Can we hold wine makers liable for drinking and driving?

Are wines advertised for the express purpose of getting behind the wheel after you drink them? If so, please, she away in Connecticut.

Can we hold game manufactures liable for teens dying at their keyboards?

Are these games marketed for the express purpose of dying at your keyboards? If so, please, sue away in Connecticut.

Meaning people use products in unlawful ways, does that make the product manufacture liable?

When the products are expressly marketed for those unlawful purposes, in a Connecticut, yes.

Yes, those are the next steps.

No, they aren't, but you'd have to read to understand that which is a big ask.

#27 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-12 12:26 PM | Reply

All they have to do is prove that the weapon used was defective.

#28 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-11-12 12:39 PM | Reply

I believe the car commercials do promote their products as being able to violate speed limits and some of these commercials project the drivers as being secret agents.

In comparison of why anyone would need a gun as powerful as 'x', my best friend has ruined his life due to alcohol being extremely extremely high 'proof'.

Beer, wine, etc. Not strong enough. He kept upping the proof level and the State gladly allowed him to consume it. Between the injuries of drunk driving and the damage of the alcohol's octane, it is time to sue the alcohol industry...who needs proof that high and sue the car companies, there is no need for cars on our highways with speed capacities that we have

You can sue anyone for anything. This is the slippery slope. The gun commercials don't say, buy this and commit crime. Yet, the car commercials definitely do (the small print says, professional driver on off-road course).

I cant see the print in most commercials, which should be illegal.

#29 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-11-12 12:48 PM | Reply

t's the person who pulled the trigger.
#4 | POSTED BY BOAZ

But it's Remington that has the money.

#30 | Posted by 6thPersona at 2019-11-12 12:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I believe the car commercials do promote their products as being able to violate speed limits and some of these commercials project the drivers as being secret agents.

Cool. Then when someone gets run over in Connecticut they or their estate should sue under your theory.

The gun commercials don't say, buy this and commit crime.

They promoted their product as something that would make its user a military hero capable of large-scale assaults that would make his enemies "bow down." Nobody cares about your strawman.

#31 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-12 01:01 PM | Reply

Huh. Generally knee-jerk reactions from the right, and a nuanced, thoughtful explanation from Joe, presumably from the left. Imagine that.

Even as a person in favor of more regulation and gun control, I had similar slippery slope concerns just reading this headline. The discussion here is very interesting, though, and Joe has given me a lot to think about as it pertains to advertising. It's definitely an interesting case.

And Boaz, and I'd like to go on record. The right of my children to live ----------------- outweighs your right to a gun. Find a new argument; this argument is morally bankrupt and is a red herring.

#32 | Posted by dylanfan at 2019-11-12 01:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Actually, we have the right to live and bear arms. There's a whole list of rights I have.

I haven't seen a gun commercial ever tell me that the gun is for killing my neighbor.

However, in intruder in my home us the enemy of myself and my family. So, yes, the commercial is correct.

Also, if they are armed illegally, I need the best legal defense.

Yes, if this suit goes forward, all commercials can be read as promoting what you think.

Does anyone know if the killer actually bought the gun because of the commercials?

Wouldn't they have to prove the commercial was at fault?

#33 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-11-12 01:19 PM | Reply

Kind of like the video sparking Bengazi

#34 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-11-12 01:20 PM | Reply

I'm trying to find the actual advertisements in question and haven't been successful.

#35 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-12 01:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

the right of my children to live completely outweighs your fetishist desire to own a particular type of weapon. And only a moral abomination would say otherwise.

#7 | POSTED BY MODER8

They should probably make murder illegal. That'll fix it.

#36 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-11-12 01:29 PM | Reply

Actually, we have the right to live and bear arms.

This case isn't about your right to bear arms. The sole issue is whether the gunmaker marketed its weapons for an illegal use which would be a violation of Connecticut law.

I haven't seen a gun commercial ever tell me that the gun is for killing my neighbor.

That's cool, but nobody cares whether you've seen the ads; ads exist beyond your television (and beyond tv in general), and telling you to kill your neighbor is not the only type of ad that would be considered unlawful in connecticut.

#37 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-12 01:30 PM | Reply

You talking about the one that talks about "A well-regulated militia"?

No, we are talking about the bold letters that say my right to keep and bear arms will NOT be infringed.

What about that dont you understand?

#38 | Posted by boaz at 2019-11-12 01:30 PM | Reply

And Boaz, and I'd like to go on record. The right of my children to live ----------------- outweighs your right to a gun. Find a new argument;

I dont need to. And yes, My right to own a weapon does outweight your right to not own one. Sorry, you just dont get to declare when this argument is over. I will always keep the right to own a weapon, if nothing else to defend myself from everyone else..

#39 | Posted by boaz at 2019-11-12 01:32 PM | Reply

I'm trying to find the actual advertisements in question and haven't been successful.

Google some of the phrases in #18 and you'll find them.

Also, note that nobody has yet ruled that these ads do violate Connecticut law - only that the unlawful marketing exception to the federal law that blocks suits against gun manufacturers applies to the facts alleged in this case, so the case should not be summarily dismissed.

#40 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-12 01:40 PM | Reply

#40 Thanks.

#41 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-12 01:44 PM | Reply

Imagine the dead children are beautiful, lovely feet with long toes that end in gorgeously painted nails and maybe you'll understand why people are disturbed by your argument.

To be clear here - I disagree with your stance, but I respect it. I think your argument, though, is incredibly callous and offensive.

#42 | Posted by dylanfan at 2019-11-12 01:44 PM | Reply

None of those slogans promote shooting your neighbor.

About the fast car commercial:

Https://nypost.com/2003/11/30/car-commercials-break-the-speed-limit/

#43 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-11-12 01:47 PM | Reply

None of those slogans promote shooting your neighbor.

That stupid argument was addressed in #37, but feel free to keep repeating it and proving how dim you are.

#44 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-12 01:50 PM | Reply

Cellphones kill!So...

#45 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2019-11-12 01:55 PM | Reply

#35

Try this. It should be a pdf of the 2012 Bushmaster Product Catalog described in the Plaintiff's Complaint.

www.google.com

#46 | Posted by et_al at 2019-11-12 02:01 PM | Reply

Your dead kids do not outweigh my right to own a weapon.

Get over it.

#4 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2019-11-12 11:22 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

Not yet. Keep talking like that and it will change.

#47 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-11-12 02:01 PM | Reply

You talking about the one that talks about "A well-regulated militia"?

It was conservative activist judges that decided the second amendment applied to an INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms. The constitution guarantees no such thing.

#12 | Posted by gtbritishskull

Why do people bother throwing this argument out there?

It's not remotely close to true.

#48 | Posted by jpw at 2019-11-12 02:10 PM | Reply

#48 It's pretty close.

Virtually every pre-2000s Supreme Court and federal appellate court case interpreted the Second Amendment to require some nexus between the weapon in question and a "well-regulated militia" in order for the 2nd Am. confer ownership rights thereto.

You might think "those cases were wrong" but it's hard to describe the decoupling of the "militia" language from the "keep and bear" language as anything but a recent judicially-crafted doctrine.

#49 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-12 02:14 PM | Reply

Try this. It should be a pdf of the 2012 Bushmaster Product Catalog described in the Plaintiff's Complaint.
www.google.com

#46 | POSTED BY ET_AL

If that is the basis of the complaint I don't see how the plaintiffs can possibly win.

I'm going to try Joe's suggesting and plug in a couple of those phrases from post #18 and see what pops up.

#50 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-12 02:23 PM | Reply

Here's a couple, Jeff.

www-thetrace-org.cdn.ampproject.org

gawker.com

#51 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-12 02:26 PM | Reply

To be clear here - I disagree with your stance, but I respect it. I think your argument, though, is incredibly callous and offensive.

#42 | Posted by dylanfan

My stance cannot be offensive because it's my right. While I dont want to see dead kids, I also do not be without my right to a weapon. It's the people pulling the trigger that should be the focus of this.

But we will have to agree to disagree.

#52 | Posted by boaz at 2019-11-12 02:26 PM | Reply

When I plug those phrases into Google no images come up that coincide with what is being described.

#53 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-12 02:26 PM | Reply

#53 -> #51

#54 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-12 02:26 PM | Reply

Joe,

You are obviously better at Google than me. #51 was helpful.

#55 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-12 02:27 PM | Reply

but it's hard to describe the decoupling of the "militia" language from the "keep and bear" language as anything but a recent judicially-crafted doctrine.

Actually, it's not. I dont see it as a "coupling" of language and neither does the constitution. It's only people like you who are trying to restrict people's rights that have introduced language like that. For 200 years everyone knew and still knows what it meant.

#56 | Posted by boaz at 2019-11-12 02:27 PM | Reply

A couple more

thefederalist.com

#57 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-12 02:29 PM | Reply

For 200 years everyone knew and still knows what it meant.

Just because you're ignorant of our Second Amendment jurisprudence doesn't mean everyone else has to be. Stop spewing your misinformed garbage here and go read a book.

#58 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-12 02:30 PM | Reply

Trump and shifty MoscowMitch is "stacking the courts with "conservative" judges" was the call to backslap right here on the DR

I predicted then the eventual disappointment in their usual rush to judgement and premature gloating

Might even happen quicker than I thought

#59 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2019-11-12 02:32 PM | Reply

Virtually every pre-2000s Supreme Court and federal appellate court case interpreted the Second Amendment to require some nexus between the weapon in question and a "well-regulated militia" in order for the 2nd Am. confer ownership rights thereto.

My knowledge of the case law isn't very good but IIRC previous cases were centered more around function of the gun (ie sawed off shotgun) and the usage being common or criminal.

Not much had been adjudicated regarding the 2nd being about individuals or groups.

My comment was more in reference to the historical meaning of "well regulated" and the current and past legal definitions of militia.

In any case, I don't think rehashing those long dead and beaten horses is worth the post counts.

#60 | Posted by jpw at 2019-11-12 02:35 PM | Reply

IIRC previous cases were centered more around function of the gun (ie sawed off shotgun) and the usage being common or criminal.

They were usually weapon-specific as that's how someone would have standing to bring a challenge, but it wasn't their use, it was their relation (or lack thereof) to a well-regulated militia that the analysis turned on.

Upholding a conviction under the 1934 National Firearms Act, the Supreme Court held that "[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." Miller, 307 U. S., at 178.

I agree it's not worth rehashing, especially because this isn't a Second Amendment case in anyway, but i think it's important for people to be checked on this stuff when it comes up.

#61 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-12 02:38 PM | Reply

Make all the arguments you want for either side. The bottom line is that this law suit is an end run to ruin gum makers.
Which is the end run to prevent anyone honest or otherwise from buying a gun.
In this instance it's the so-called assault weapon made by Remington. Millions are made by Colt. Millions are made by any number of companies.
Next week it will be handguns. Because most illegal shootings by felonious thugs are done with a handgun.
Next month someone will finally discover that one of the deadliest guns out there is a plain ol 12 ga shotgun.
The clickbait on this thread is that the supposed rightwing loaded SC ruled against Remington.
Comon B-shtters tell it like it is... Leave the twisting to huffmyshorts etal.

#62 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2019-11-12 02:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Uh huh. It's all a big conspiracy to take away your toys.

Tell that to the parents of the 6 and 7 year old kids shot in the face with a Bushmaster.

#63 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-12 02:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Thanks Joe.

#64 | Posted by hamburglar at 2019-11-12 03:18 PM | Reply

I followed the links and still don't see how the advertising promoted illegal use.

I don't see the advertisements stating this is for personal use to shoot innocent people.

It isn't there.

The weapon does kill people. The fact it is sold for military and police use is there.

However, are the police buying the guns to shoot innocent people?

I guess the military knows who to shoot in a war zone. The public and police can buy these guns with the same point of view.

Why do police have guns. Obviously not to hunt, so why? The same reason the public buys: if not hunting, its self defense.

#65 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-11-12 03:23 PM | Reply

...."But it's not the weapons fault these kids are dead. It's the person who pulled the trigger."

That is one of the stupidest claims the NRA idiots propose. You are absolutely correct that it was not the guns fault. But then the guns were not sued and if they lose this case, the guns will not go to jail nor will the guns have to pay any fine.

The gun MAKERS might lose and the gun MAKERS would have to pay the fine.

#66 | Posted by prius04 at 2019-11-12 03:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I don't see the advertisements stating this is for personal use to shoot innocent people.

That's nice. And while that isn't the threshold for whether these ads violate the law, the only thing the Court did was rule that an exception to federal law protecting gunmakers applies which allows this case to go forward so that perhaps a jury will decide what you're looking at.

#67 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-12 03:40 PM | Reply

#64 Anytime.

#68 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-12 03:41 PM | Reply

I expect the families will lose, but in doing so will cast a glaring light on how guns are given special protection in our society.

Guns are protected far beyond what the Second Amendment requires.

#69 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-12 03:46 PM | Reply

Boaz,

If you can't see how "I'd rather have dead kids and my guns than have living kids and not my guns" is an offensive argument, then I can't help you. I'm not sure anybody can. That's the crux of what you're saying. I don't understand how you can't see it.

#70 | Posted by dylanfan at 2019-11-12 04:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"I'd rather have dead kids and my guns than have living kids and not my guns"

^

Are you really surprised the people who hate Greta Thunberg hate all the other kids and the planet too?

We need to get past the point of being shocked and outraged when these sociopaths show their true colors.

#71 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-12 04:21 PM | Reply

Imagine your own child senselessly blown apart by a gun.

Imagine the amount and scale of grief, apparently so much that at least one Newtown parent recently committed suicide.

I don't want any parent to ever feel that way again; i am overwhelmed with sadness for them whenever i discuss this shooting.

Nobody's "right" to own an AR-15 (a "right" created by judges less than 15 years ago) outweighs the right of a parent to send their child to school and be sure their kid will not be efficiently splattered against the wall with a weapon that no civilian has any business owning.

I'd personally ban all guns, and i know that has zero political chance of happening in this ------ up country, but the least we can do is make it more difficult for people to murder dozens of people before the cops show up.

Anyone who thinks their hobby is more important than a dead 6 year old is absolutely ------ in the head.

#72 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-12 04:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Imagine your own child senselessly blown apart by a gun."

That's what Boaz thinks about, when he blows apart Iraqi children with his gun.

It's why he does it.

#73 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-12 04:34 PM | Reply

"The Connecticut Supreme Court has already sided with the plaintiffs that Remington "knowingly marketed, advertised, and promoted the XM15-E2S for civilians to use to carry out offensive, military style combat missions against their perceived enemies."

The Connecticut Supreme Court knows what guns are for?
Can someone explain it to the liberals?
Thanks!

#74 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-12 05:12 PM | Reply

What I don't understand is how the marketing influenced the tragedy. The shooter did not buy the gun after seeing the ads. He killed his mother and used whatever guns she had to go kill others. What am I missing?

#75 | Posted by flagger at 2019-11-12 05:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"I'd personally ban all guns" Nope, no slippery slope here.

#76 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-11-12 06:22 PM | Reply

Annual check with the local sheriff for each firearm.

At the very least.

#77 | Posted by LostAngeles at 2019-11-12 07:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#72,

Well Joe,

I dont understand why anyone needs an abortion either. How about this...

We can ban AR15's when you ban abortion, deal?

#78 | Posted by boaz at 2019-11-12 08:27 PM | Reply

Snoofy,

Work on your trolling. It's getting bad again..:)

#79 | Posted by boaz at 2019-11-12 08:28 PM | Reply

If you can't see how "I'd rather have dead kids and my guns than have living kids and not my guns" is an offensive argument, then I can't help you

If you cant see it's not the gun doing the killing, it's the person pulling the trigger, then I cant help you either.

Enough said. You wont be taking my guns anytime soon anyway..

#80 | Posted by boaz at 2019-11-12 08:29 PM | Reply

"What I don't understand is how the marketing influenced the tragedy."

Hmm. Well, at least it sounds like you've got a clearer understanding than all those millions of Americans who don't understand how the Second Amendment "influenced the tragedy."

#81 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-12 08:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I dont understand why anyone needs an abortion either."

You don't understand why someone who got pregnant from rape or ------ would want an abortion?

I believe you, Boaz! I really do!

#82 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-12 08:35 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Your dead kids do not outweigh my right to own a gun" makes no mention of the shooter. You are straight up choosing a firearm over a human life. I may have been brash about my disapproval of this argument, but honestly - YOU said the words. If YOU use rhetoric like this instead of a reasonable response (which it seems plenty of other guns rights proponents are capable of doing), then don't be surprised to be called on your --------. Your exact language is that you'd rather have a dead child than give up your firearm. And you call yourself pro-life?

#83 | Posted by dylanfan at 2019-11-12 09:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You don't understand why someone who got pregnant from rape or ------ would want an abortion?
I believe you, Boaz! I really do!
#82 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

You don't understand why someone who had been raped, threatened with rape or being beaten to death would want the protection of a gun?
I believe you Snoof! I really do!

#84 | Posted by 6thPersona at 2019-11-12 09:32 PM | Reply

Ronald Reagan for gun control.

youtu.be

#85 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-11-12 10:39 PM | Reply

NRA for gun control.

time.com

#86 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-11-12 10:43 PM | Reply

"You don't understand why someone who had been raped, threatened with rape or being beaten to death would want the protection of a gun?"

It's for the same reason someone who rapes would want the protection of a gun, right?

#87 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-12 11:13 PM | Reply

I expect the families will lose, but in doing so will cast a glaring light on how guns are given special protection in our society.
#69 | Posted by snoofy

Be careful what you wish for.

Pharmaceutical companies that produce vaccines enjoy similar legal privileges.

#88 | Posted by jpw at 2019-11-13 02:20 AM | Reply

Vaccines don't kill 25 people a day, 80 if you count suicide.

#89 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-13 02:41 AM | Reply

t's for the same reason someone who rapes would want the protection of a gun, right?

#87 | Posted by snoofy

Not at all.

Jesus ---- Christ you can be a real POS sometimes.

#90 | Posted by jpw at 2019-11-13 02:47 AM | Reply

Vaccines don't kill 25 people a day, 80 if you count suicide.

#89 | Posted by snoofy

Doesn't matter in the eyes of a judge seeing the case.

Don't be so myopic. You'll, at the very least, come across more mature because of it.

#91 | Posted by jpw at 2019-11-13 02:49 AM | Reply

You are straight up choosing a firearm over a human life.

That's not my argument and you know it. You know what I'm saying, but your need to have me look stupid and feel like you are right overrides your being able to see my side and what I'm saying.

And you would have a point, if the weapon was really the one killing people. But it's not. It's the person pulling the trigger. I have a weapon in my closet right now and has been for 10 years. I have yet to see it walking through my kitchen or in my bathroom getting ready to shoot itself. Your inability or unwillingness to understand this is why our country is having so much strife today over this issue.

#92 | Posted by boaz at 2019-11-13 07:31 AM | Reply

You can't miss how darkly humorous the advertising is. Gun Control groups have put up billboards, with the shooter's name, and how many they killed. It's listed like the high score of a video game. Firearm ads are the polar opposite, it's like a barbie ad, check out all of these accessories!

#93 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-11-13 08:23 AM | Reply

Saying "Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered" is about as close to endorsing a product for mass shootings as you're gonna get.

#22 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2019-11-12 12:03 PM | FLAG:

That was a Bushmaster ad. This lawsuit is about Remington. That was not an AR ad. That was an ACR ad. Remington makes the ACR for the military. Bushmaster makes it for civilian purchase. None have been used in a mass shooting afaik. It's not cheap.

#94 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-11-13 08:38 AM | Reply

For the cost of 1 ACR, we can assemble 4 AR15s in about 30 minutes.

#95 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-11-13 08:39 AM | Reply

That was a Bushmaster ad. This lawsuit is about Remington.

Remington makes the Bushmaster AR. The ad i cited is the basis of this lawsuit. You think this case went all the way to the CT Supreme Court without your detective work exposing the truth?

#96 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-13 08:47 AM | Reply

if the weapon was really the one killing people. But it's not. It's the person pulling the trigger. I have a weapon in my closet right now and has been for 10 years. I have yet to see it walking through my kitchen or in my bathroom getting ready to shoot itself.

And yet here i am, no gun in my hand, making a shooting motion with my finger, and no bullets are coming out. What gives?

It's almost like it takes a person and a gun to make a mass shooting happen. And since we aren't ever going to find and lock up all the crazy people before they manage to go on a rampage, the least we could do after a bunch of 6 year olds get shot in the face is make it marginally more difficult for those crazy people to act on their sick desires.

But no, even something like "background checks" and "you cant buy weapons that have zero civilian purpose" is a bridge too far for gun fetishists like Boaz. 6 year olds be damned.

#97 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-13 08:50 AM | Reply

Remington makes the Bushmaster AR.

#96 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2019-11-13 08:47 AM | FLAG:

Bushmaster is a separate brand from Remington. Whoever is handling the case must be better informed than you.

#98 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-11-13 09:16 AM | Reply

Took thousands of deaths but..........

#99 | Posted by fresno500 at 2019-11-13 09:29 AM | Reply

"We can ban AR15's when you ban abortion, deal?"

So the states that make it virtually impossible to get an abortion should already be banning AR15s.

#100 | Posted by danni at 2019-11-13 10:00 AM | Reply

Bushmaster is a separate brand from Remington.

Who ------- cares? Remington owns Bushmaster. Remington is a defendant in a case against Bushmaster because it had a hand in the production, marketing and/or sale of the weapon in question. Leave it to a trumper to get sidetracked by nonsense.

#101 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-13 10:00 AM | Reply

Who

#101 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2019-11-13 10:00 AM | REPLY

People expecting it to go into bankruptcy again. Funny trump label. Democrat, thx.

Superior court got it right throwing it out in the first place. The amicus brief that the XM15 is a military weapon is wrong and the only way to fix that is to change federal regulation. What is and is not a military weapon is clearly defined and mag-fed, rapid fire carbines have been in civilian hands for 70 years.

#102 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-11-13 11:00 AM | Reply

Your dead kids do not outweigh my right to own a weapon.

Get over it.

#4 | POSTED BY BOAZ

You can lose that right. And insane immoral people like you should lose that right. And someday, if we survive ourselves, the criminally insane such as yourself will lose the "right" to To access weapons of mass murder. But we will let you keep your hand gun... so you can still murder yourself at least.

I am pretty sure not very many will miss you. And we won't blame the gun.

And Who places the value of a owning a gun above that of lives of our children?

Who does that?

Only the criminally insane. Like Republicans. I guess.

#103 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-11-13 11:52 AM | Reply

"And Who places the value of a owning a gun above that of lives of our children? Who does that?"

"The tree of liberty must regularly be watered by the blood of innocent children."

I think I got that quote right.

#104 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2019-11-13 11:58 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Boaz - I said that I understood your stance even if I disagreed with it. You're the one who laid out the argument that you value guns more highly than children. I honestly don't think I'm distorting your argument here; you offered it up without being prompted.

#105 | Posted by dylanfan at 2019-11-13 12:35 PM | Reply

"It's for the same reason someone who rapes would want the protection of a gun, right?
#87 | Posted by snoofy

Not at all."

Yes at all, JPW.

In both cases the weapon is used to achieve dominance over and compliance by the person on the receiving end of the barrel.

That does not change whether the person using the gun is a Good Guy or a Bad Guy.

Seriously. Why pretend otherwise.

#106 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-13 03:37 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort