RED ALERT!! Supreme court rules against 2nd amendment in devistatinng opinionn

Discussion in 'Conspiracy Theories' started by MindWars, Nov 12, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. MindWars
    Offline

    MindWars Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2016
    Messages:
    37,764
    Thanks Received:
    8,630
    Trophy Points:
    1,340
    Ratings:
    +37,379
    The US Supreme Court denied a request to review a case against Remington Arms, a ruling which overturns the very foundation of society by making companies guilty of behavior by end users:

    Red Alert: Supreme Court Rules Against 2nd Amendment in Devastating Opinion


    IF YOU HIT SOMEONE THE CAR MAKER IS GUILTY FUCK YOU GAWD DAM ASSHOLES!!
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. MindWars
    Offline

    MindWars Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2016
    Messages:
    37,764
    Thanks Received:
    8,630
    Trophy Points:
    1,340
    Ratings:
    +37,379
    More from the Washington Times:

    The justices denied Remington’s request to review the case as it carries on in Connecticut courts.

    The gun manufacturer had challenged the legal battle against it, saying federal law generally prohibits lawsuits against gun sellers and manufacturers when criminal use results from such a sale.

    The same law firm suing Remington Arms is also suing Alex Jones, which means that the First Amendment is as threatened as the Second.

    The lawyer representing Remington, Scott Keller, said the lawsuit against the manufacturer “is exactly the kind of case arising from a criminal’s misuse of a firearm that ‘may not be brought in any federal or state court.'”
     
  3. Dekster
    Offline

    Dekster Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2014
    Messages:
    6,457
    Thanks Received:
    681
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Ratings:
    +3,810
    I am sure they will review it again after the trial and appeals
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. Pogo
    Offline

    Pogo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2012
    Messages:
    108,501
    Thanks Received:
    15,227
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Fennario
    Ratings:
    +54,031
    If I have to read your boringly gullible hair-on-fire crapola posts again tomorrow, will USMB be "guilty"?

    Poster please.
     
  5. Pogo
    Offline

    Pogo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2012
    Messages:
    108,501
    Thanks Received:
    15,227
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Fennario
    Ratings:
    +54,031
    Oh good. The Moonies.

    [​IMG]

    Just gets more and more credible. Devistatinngly so.
     
  6. MindWars
    Offline

    MindWars Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2016
    Messages:
    37,764
    Thanks Received:
    8,630
    Trophy Points:
    1,340
    Ratings:
    +37,379
    we can hope so you know how most are a bit to stupid to figure it out to where if you :

    Hit somebody with a baseball and it kills them or severely harms them they too can now be sued and responsible-------

    If you tripped knocked someone over now you can be sued for your accident and LOSE

    if your car hits somebody and kills them the car maker now gets sued lmfao PPL R FUCKING IDIOTS!!
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  7. EvilEyeFleegle
    Offline

    EvilEyeFleegle Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2017
    Messages:
    4,901
    Thanks Received:
    710
    Trophy Points:
    355
    Ratings:
    +3,500
    Not that I really care about this..but your logic is flawed...hitting someone with a ball is a misuse of the intended purpose. It was not foreseeable.

    If you trip..you may be sued already..depends if your accident was foreseeable and/or the result of your carelessness.

    If you hit someone..and kill them with your car...if some damage or defect is discovered--damn right. The maker gets sued.

    There is precedent....the tobacco lawsuits.....the Oxycontin settlements.

    Tort law is a weird thing--if the jury finds that there is a causal linkage between Remington's marketing..and the loss of their children--the Plaintiff might get the nod. If they do..be hard to overturn.

    No matter..the 2nd is safe..as the ruling would affect Gun makers..not your right to bear arms.
     
  8. Dekster
    Offline

    Dekster Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2014
    Messages:
    6,457
    Thanks Received:
    681
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Ratings:
    +3,810
    But can the baseball bat manufacturer, your shoe lace manufacturer and your car manufacturer be sued for your negligence or intentional acts?

    Anyway I assume they are going for the negligence exception to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act but I haven't really followed the case that much.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. Dont Taz Me Bro
    Offline

    Dont Taz Me Bro USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    46,198
    Thanks Received:
    10,236
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Ratings:
    +37,305
    Already a thread on this
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page