Sandy Hook families reach $73 million settlement with riflemaker Remington

[Guilds]

@Mountain_Soldier

Couldn’t have been the left trying more and more egregious ways to ban guns….

I am pretty sure that is what you feel…

[WuWei]

@kingarthur65

What was illogical about allowing this lawsuit?

What is logical about it? What is Remington’s culpability here?

[conan]

Indeed, they ■■■■■■ up. Now every gun manufacturer will have to face repercussions from there decision

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@WuWei

@Supreme_War_Pig

@WuWei

@Guntsu

I understand you feel that way

Sure do. It is illogical to allow a suit such as this.

I don’t understand why it was allowed.

BUT the 2019 Supremes allowed it, so he we are.

It’s allowed because of lies and lack of understanding.

If you say so. They denied ceriatori, assume that is Roberts and the four libs.

Instead of lies and misunderstanding, that could be a different legal theory.

[kingarthur65]

@WuWei

@kingarthur65

What was illogical about allowing this lawsuit?

What is logical about it? What is Remington’s culpability here?

First I’d like to know what you think was illogical. Was it allowing the lawsuit to be heard or are you saying that it should not have been heard because there was no way could have been culpable?

[WuWei]

@Supreme_War_Pig

@WuWei

@Supreme_War_Pig

@WuWei

@Guntsu

I understand you feel that way

Sure do. It is illogical to allow a suit such as this.

I don’t understand why it was allowed.

BUT the 2019 Supremes allowed it, so he we are.

It’s allowed because of lies and lack of understanding.

If you say so. They denied ceriatori, assume that is Roberts and the four libs.

Instead of lies and misunderstanding, that could be a different legal theory.

No, they don’t like the 2nd anymore than your ilk.

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@conan

Indeed, they ■■■■■■ up. Now every gun manufacturer will have to face repercussions from there decision

Actually, no. The current court will never allow another case. Assume it will be like that until well after we are dead.

[WuWei]

@kingarthur65

@WuWei

@kingarthur65

What was illogical about allowing this lawsuit?

What is logical about it? What is Remington’s culpability here?

First I’d like to know what you think was illogical. Was it allowing the lawsuit to be heard or are you saying that it should not have been heard because there was no way could have been culpable?

Remington is not culpable of anything in this case. Therefore it is illogical to allow a suit.

[WuWei]

It is frivolous.

[floydefisher]

Should we sue boxing gyms when someone who works out at one punches a guy and sends him six feet under?

Should we sue the Gracie family when some cop choke holds a suspect and kills him (George Floyd anyone)?

Where do you draw the line?

[kingarthur65]

They were sued for deceptive marketing practices. Should they be exempt from that?

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@WuWei

@Supreme_War_Pig

@WuWei

@Supreme_War_Pig

@WuWei

@Guntsu

I understand you feel that way

Sure do. It is illogical to allow a suit such as this.

I don’t understand why it was allowed.

BUT the 2019 Supremes allowed it, so he we are.

It’s allowed because of lies and lack of understanding.

If you say so. They denied ceriatori, assume that is Roberts and the four libs.

Instead of lies and misunderstanding, that could be a different legal theory.

No, they don’t like the 2nd anymore than your ilk.

I don’t agree with my ‘ilk’ regarding 2A.

And as usual, I disagree with your premise. Yours is not the only correct view on the second.

[floydefisher]

What is deceptive about marketing a rifle as being so reliable, the US Military uses it?

[kingarthur65]

@floydefisher

Should we sue boxing gyms when someone who works out at one punches a guy and sends him six feet under?

Should we sue the Gracie family when some cop choke holds a suspect and kills him (George Floyd anyone)?

Where do you draw the line?

Should the Sackler family/Purdue be sued for marketing Oxycontin as non habit forming when their internal documents showed they knew it was addictive?

[WuWei]

@kingarthur65

They were sued for deceptive marketing practices. Should they be exempt from that?

What was deceptive?

[WuWei]

@Supreme_War_Pig

I don’t agree with my ‘ilk’ regarding 2A.

And as usual, I disagree with your premise. Yours is not the only correct view on the second.

Mine is the plain English in which it is written view. And yes, mine is the only correct view.

[WuWei]

@kingarthur65

Should the Sackler family/Purdue be sued for marketing Oxycontin as non habit forming when their internal documents showed they knew it was addictive?

Did Remington market their rifles as non-lethal?

Analogy fail.

[kingarthur65]

@WuWei

@kingarthur65

They were sued for deceptive marketing practices. Should they be exempt from that?

What was deceptive?

For some reason, Remington agreed to allow the Plaintiffs to publish the discovery documents. I expect to find the answers to that in the coming days/weeks.

[WuWei]

@kingarthur65

@WuWei

@kingarthur65

They were sued for deceptive marketing practices. Should they be exempt from that?

What was deceptive?

For some reason, Remington agreed to allow the Plaintiffs to publish the discovery documents. I expect to find the answers to that in the coming days/weeks.

Good.

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@WuWei

@Supreme_War_Pig

I don’t agree with my ‘ilk’ regarding 2A.

And as usual, I disagree with your premise. Yours is not the only correct view on the second.

Mine is the plain English in which it is written view. And yes, mine is the only correct view.

Nope, sorry. Plain English allows for infringement to be interpreted differently.

But we’ve been around and around on this, let’s not do it again.