Conn.Supreme Ct.Rules Remington can be sued for Sandy Hook.

I'm not saying any one of them would but I am saying any one of them COULD. Of course it would depend on the mental state of the individual. I'm making a guess here but I doubt none of the people doing these mass killings are mentally stable.

If you want to argue this point further do me a favor and take it somewhere else. As I've said before, opinions are like butt holes. We all have one and nothing says they have to be the same.

 

Perhaps

 

You have to talk about decades ago, and then wrongly at that. You don't get to re-argue when you have been proven wrong, like this time. So, no. No one is buying your screed.

 

Thanks for confirming your weak ass argument that Remington ads are responsible for mass shootings is a load of hooey.

 

They wrap their sales pitch around being a soldier at home, just like the soldiers we have abroad.

Our troops are hunting rabbits.

 

Not always, but ALMOST always ads target those who have NOT purchased the product.

I think we need to wait to see exactly what plaintiffs argument is.

 

It's not new for states to have laws on firearms.

 

Really? What did they say to wrap it like that?

Huh? Don't they get MREs?

 

Is being a soldier synonymous with committing murder? Specifically the mass murder of school children? Is such the imagery that automatically comes to mind when one hears the notion of being a soldier?

If not, then the claim has no merit, and the plaintiffs still have no legitimate case.

 

And since the product in question was utilized by someone who stole it from the rightful owner, the advertisements by the Bushmaster company played no part in the matter.

Their argument is ultimately the same argument that has been made by countless others before them. That those who manufacture and sell firearms, even in full compliance with all federal and state firearm-related restrictions, are responsible for the illegal misuse of their product, simply because they produced the product and made it available to the public.

The plaintiffs have been hurt by reality, and now they must look to hurt someone else to make themselves feel better, because they cannot accept the fact that the real world is a cruel, uncaring place. Beyond that they want simple, significant financial gain. It has nothing to do with lives lost, but rather money. They feel that the world at large owes them something, and they are not going to take "no" for an answer.

 

They promote that their product makes you equivalently armed as a US troop, ready to face those here at home.

Good cut on the MREs - LOL.

 

Really? They promote that? What do they say?

 

lol - no, the ad was designed to increase demand. It didn't limit potential customers to obtaining the product legally!! How would they do that?

It just increased demand.

We'll see. I think you're missing the fact that the company advertised the weapon as useful against humans.[/QUOTE]

 

So they're effective self-defense tools. I suppose that's why civilian police forces use them. So why is this a bad thing to advertise?

 

This is WAY off track. If you want to see the ad, go find it.

At issue here was the fact that the judge allowed for the plaintiff's suit to continue.

The question is whether an advertising campaign is covered by the law against suing weapons manufacturers.

Whether the ad campaign merits a decision against the manufacturer is a different issue.

I don't see anything in the law that would prevent someone suing concerning an ad campaign.

Do you?

 

Okay, so I will take it as read that they said no such thing, as you are unwilling to provide any quotes. Have a nice whatever.

 

If you want to discuss the ruling, fine.

I'm not going to go search for the ads for you - you can do that.

 

Okay. So I will regard your statements about the advertisements as unsupported.

 

You never proved anything. Which post are you referring to?

 

The pro-gunners are hunting rabbits.



Plaintiff's arguments need to be heard.

 

Of course your arguments have been proven wrong. And, no, you don't get to re-iterate or re-litigate those arguments

Of course your arguments have been proven wrong. And, no, you don't get to re-iterate or re-litigate those arguments without addressing the points that have been refuted. Address them, Right is the way.

 

Was the firearm in question purchased and possessed by someone that was not Adam Lanza? Did Adam Lanza steal the firearm to use in the commission of the killing?

If so, then the advertisements by the Bushmaster company played absolutely no part in the matter. The illegal misuse of a product cannot be attributed the product advertisements by the manufacturer. It simply does not work that way.

Then it must be shown precisely where the Bushmaster company actually specified such. Not an allusion, but an outright statement that they have condoned the murdering of others.

 

What more is there to discuss than the simple fact the lower ruling is factually incorrect, ignores binding precedent, and will ultimately be overturned upon appeal? What is there to discuss about judicial activism?