hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 234 of 235 FirstFirst ... 134184224231232233234235 LastLast
Results 4,661 to 4,680 of 4696

Thread: Gun Thread (AK appreciation)

  1. #4661
    rufuske's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    2,566
    Again, nothing against going for the sellers. It's the way to go in my opinion. If you sell guns to people that are not legally permitted to own one, you deserve to have your life ruined by chain of lawsuits. Still just a quarter-measure without meaningful change in gun ownerships laws. But noone has enough courage to even start doing that, so let's just allow people to sue gun producers while shouting about violent video games and it will work out in the end, right?

  2. #4662
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    13,750
    Quote Originally Posted by rufuske View Post
    Again, nothing against going for the sellers. It's the way to go in my opinion. If you sell guns to people that are not legally permitted to own one, you deserve to have your life ruined by chain of lawsuits. Still just a quarter-measure without meaningful change in gun ownerships laws. But noone has enough courage to even start doing that, so let's just allow people to sue gun producers while shouting about violent video games and it will work out in the end, right?
    something in the region of 400 people have died from mass shootings this year alone, and you're literately stanning for one of the poor widdle corporations that profits off this.

    but since you obviously didn't actually read the article and the reasoning provided therein before crying about what was it ? "some dumb lefties jerking off" ? here is a helpful quote, and since you've already proven your complete lack of attention span, the relevant part has even been put in bold!

    “This simply means that the case can proceed under Connecticut state law, and it doesn’t mean that the plaintiffs will prevail,” says Robert Spitzer, a gun policy expert and chairman of the political science department at the State University of New York at Cortland.

    But Spitzer and other experts say Remington could be forced to provide documents that could yield damaging internal memos—similar to the way a major civil settlement in 1998 forced the tobacco industry to disclose millions of pages of internal communications that revealed deceptive marketing practices.


    “Who knows what they’ll find,” Spitzer says, “but there’s certainly a fair likelihood that it could indeed be damaging politically and perhaps even to the legal case they’re trying to make.”
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  3. #4663
    rufuske's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    2,566
    They won't find anything but a lot of donations to NRA. In case of smoking you can do a lot of deception, downplaying all the damage to health it can do etc. How would that work out with weapons? They're less lethal than what others make? Sound marketing tactic for a gun. Targeting paranoid preppers or people affraid of home invasion? What kind of case can you build on that?

    And I'm not whiteknighting for gun corporations. I'm whiteknighting for not targeting producers that can have their products misused by a letter of the law.

  4. #4664
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    13,750
    They won't find anything but a lot of donations to NRA. In case of smoking you can do a lot of deception, downplaying all the damage to health it can do etc. How would that work out with weapons? They're less lethal than what others make? Sound marketing tactic for a gun. Targeting paranoid preppers or people affraid of home invasion? What kind of case can you build on that?
    evidently, the plaintiff thinks there is something buried there. and you're happily ignoring my previous point with chain responsibility, setting the precedent that the manufacturer is (partially) liable for their dealers not doing due diligence before handing off a, for all intents and purposes, military assault rifle to somebody "not of sound mind" is not, in my view, unreasonable.

    there is a enormous list of compounds where this is the case here, including basically all the components that go into production of stable explosives.

    And I'm not whiteknighting for gun corporations. I'm whiteknighting for not targeting producers that can have their products misused by a letter of the law.
    you're literately white-knighting Remington, and the funny things about laws is that they're subject to change when required and just as important, the law is not by default morally or ethically right.

    uncovering say, evidence extensive "behind the scenes" lobbying efforts even if it's above board legally is still significant.
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  5. #4665
    Movember 2011Movember 2012 Nordstern's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    10,728
    Quote Originally Posted by rufuske View Post
    So what was the mechanical fault on Remington's side there?
    There wasn't one. The law that made firearms manufacturers immune to liability carved out an exception if the marketing violated federal rules or some such. The suit is focusing on Remington's marketing of the weapon as a military weapon effective at killing people quickly. The plaintiffs maintain that it was the marketing that drove the shooter to purchase that specific weapon, and the courts have been receptive to this approach.

    The families first filed their lawsuit in December 2014, saying the Bushmaster rifle never should have been sold to the public because it is a military-style weapon. They accuse Remington of violating Connecticut's unfair trade practices law when it "knowingly marketed and promoted the Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle for use in assaults against human beings."

    The closely watched lawsuit has survived many legal twists and turns, moving from state to federal court and back, and repeatedly escaping bids by Remington and gun owners' groups to quash it. While the suit initially centered on a claim of negligent entrustment — or providing a gun to someone who plans to commit a crime with it — the case now hinges on how Remington marketed the gun.

    The 2005 federal law that shields gun companies from liability has several exceptions — including one allowing lawsuits against a gun-maker or seller that knowingly violates state or federal laws governing how a product is sold or marketed.

    ......

    In filings with the U.S. Supreme Court, the Sandy Hook families say Remington "published promotional materials that promised 'military-proven performance' for a 'mission-adaptable' shooter in need of the 'ultimate combat weapons system.' " They also accuse the company of fostering a "lone gunman" narrative as it promoted the Bushmaster, citing an ad that proclaimed, "Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered."

    Parents who lost their children on that horrible day have said it was no accident that Lanza picked the AR-15-style rifle to carry out his shooting rampage.

    In 2016, Nicole Hockley, whose son Dylan was killed in the attack on his elementary school, said the gunman chose an AR-15-style gun "because he knew it would kill as many people as possible as fast as possible."
    https://www.npr.org/2019/11/12/77848...ton-to-proceed
    Last edited by Nordstern; November 14 2019 at 01:33:36 AM.
    "Holy shit, I ask you to stop being autistic and you debate what autistic is." - spasm
    Quote Originally Posted by Larkonis Trassler View Post
    WTF I hate white people now...

  6. #4666
    evil edna's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    5,553
    Well their advertising wasnt wrong apparently

  7. #4667
    rufuske's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    2,566
    Quote Originally Posted by evil edna View Post
    Well their advertising wasnt wrong apparently
    No idea what kind of mental gymnastics one needs to go throught to not realize that all it proves is that product is working as intended. And now it will be fined because adverts were honest.

    Problem is availability and ease of getting one for everyone. All this does is makes law more nonsensical to score some brownie points with people like Liare, while root cause and real problem is not addressed. All it will accomplish is making Remington's financial report look worse while shooting continues. Another glorious victory to progressive left.

  8. #4668
    VARRAKK's Avatar
    Join Date
    September 27, 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    6,330
    If you can't get these weapon banned, you can make the manufacturers stop making them.

    Many of the manufacturers aren't doing so well financially, and can't afford a lawsuit landslide.
    Safer to just not make assault rifles.
    The Epic Store is amazing, I've been able to save so much money by not buying their games.

  9. #4669
    rufuske's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    2,566
    Quote Originally Posted by VARRAKK View Post
    If you can't get these weapon banned, you can make the manufacturers stop making them.

    Many of the manufacturers aren't doing so well financially, and can't afford a lawsuit landslide.
    Safer to just not make assault rifles.
    Brb, paging Razor.

    And disband military, right? I'll take your post as jokingly lobbying for Bofors Carl Gustaf to sell more equipment to US military because otherwise it's so retarded I can't wrap my head around it.

    Once again in good faith: there's no point in messing with producers. These things are meant to be military use only and they should be. Stop selling this shit to civilians and get it off their hands. Not close all production.
    Last edited by rufuske; November 14 2019 at 11:33:19 AM.

  10. #4670
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    19,776
    Quote Originally Posted by rufuske View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by VARRAKK View Post
    If you can't get these weapon banned, you can make the manufacturers stop making them.

    Many of the manufacturers aren't doing so well financially, and can't afford a lawsuit landslide.
    Safer to just not make assault rifles.
    Brb, paging Razor.

    And disband military, right?
    The US military is a socialist project and runs counter to the laissez faire ideals of the founding fathers.
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  11. #4671
    rufuske's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    2,566
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by rufuske View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by VARRAKK View Post
    If you can't get these weapon banned, you can make the manufacturers stop making them.

    Many of the manufacturers aren't doing so well financially, and can't afford a lawsuit landslide.
    Safer to just not make assault rifles.
    Brb, paging Razor.

    And disband military, right?
    The US military is a socialist project and runs counter to the laissez faire ideals of the founding fathers.
    So disband and arm every civilian, surely this will solve it. 2nd ammendment as intended. Clearly the problem is not that civilians have access to military grade equipment, it's that they don't have enough stockpiled.

  12. #4672
    VARRAKK's Avatar
    Join Date
    September 27, 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    6,330
    Quote Originally Posted by rufuske View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by VARRAKK View Post
    If you can't get these weapon banned, you can make the manufacturers stop making them.

    Many of the manufacturers aren't doing so well financially, and can't afford a lawsuit landslide.
    Safer to just not make assault rifles.
    Brb, paging Razor.

    And disband military, right? I'll take your post as jokingly lobbying for Bofors Carl Gustaf to sell more equipment to US military because otherwise it's so retarded I can't wrap my head around it.

    Once again in good faith: there's no point in messing with producers. These things are meant to be military use only and they should be. Stop selling this shit to civilians and get it off their hands. Not close all production.
    There is a minor difference in selling these weapons to the public vs to the military.
    The Epic Store is amazing, I've been able to save so much money by not buying their games.

  13. #4673
    rufuske's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    2,566
    Which you don't understand or see, since you asked to not make assault rifles at all.

  14. #4674
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    19,776
    Or maybe just make them to order when the military needs stock? It's a stupid talking point anyway as far as military procurement goes, how much money is the US gov spending to build Abrams for the sole purpose of abandoning in the desert?
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  15. #4675
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    13,750
    Quote Originally Posted by rufuske View Post
    Which you don't understand or see, since you asked to not make assault rifles at all.
    look at that strawman, it's fucking terrible!
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  16. #4676
    rufuske's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    2,566
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Or maybe just make them to order when the military needs stock? It's a stupid talking point anyway as far as military procurement goes, how much money is the US gov spending to build Abrams for the sole purpose of abandoning in the desert?
    Finally getting somewhere sensible. That would be one of solutions that should be considered.

  17. #4677
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    19,776
    It is probably one of the least pressing problems facing America though
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  18. #4678
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    13,750
    the funny bit about 2nd amendment warriors is they forget the first part.

    quite how bubba shooting pee-filled beer cans with a AR-15 constitutes a well regulated militia is left as a exercise to the americans.
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  19. #4679
    rufuske's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    2,566
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    It is probably one of the least pressing problems facing America though
    I disagree.

  20. #4680
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    19,776
    Huge economic inequality, massive prison population, mass lack of healthcare coverage, opioid epidemic, obesity epidemic, collapsing infrastructure, child raping president, at-will employment etc. Who has what type of firearm isn't a systemic problem.
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •