Time for Gun makers to boycott states.

SavannahMann

Platinum Member
Nov 16, 2016
13,503
6,285
365
After the already discussed to death decision of the Supreme Court in Remington v. Soto, there is one question left to discuss. What do we do now. That is the topic of this thread. It is not about the Remington Decision, or the future litigation. It is about what the Gun Makers should do now.

The answer is obvious. Boycott any and all sales to Connecticut. No sales, no way, to anyone. No guns, no ammunition, nothing. Not to the Cops, not to the citizens. Just pull out of the State entirely. The question now is how long before the same Politicians and Pundits who are demanding just this, would be up there like Foghorn Leghorn demanding these same companies ship guns and ammunition in to the Police?

If the are going to hold Remington responsible for the actions of the individual in one case, why not others? Why not sue Glock when a cop shoots a guy? Why not sue Smith and Wesson when the State Patrolman kills a motorist? If the maker of the weapon is responsible, we can’t risk it. We have to pull out of the State. Same thing with Ammunition Sales. In the 1980’s when Hollow-points were starting to be adapted by Police, the Lawyers claimed this ammunition was so vile, so awful it was prohibited by the Geneva Convention. It took years before the truth started to get out. How long before someone sues Hornady because the bullet expanded and killed the victim of a police shooting?

So the answer is this. Boycott Connecticut. All Gun Makers should cease all sales in the state. All Ammunition Manufacturers should also cease all sales. One of the worst things you can do to someone, is give them what they say they want. Then stand back and enjoy the chaos.
 
The court cases will go nowhere. No way can a gun company be held liable for what people who buy their guns do.

The gun is the tool. The person using it is the weapon and unless you can control, ban or regulate murderous assholes you will always have victims.
 
The court cases will go nowhere. No way can a gun company be held liable for what people who buy their guns do.

The gun is the tool. The person using it is the weapon and unless you can control, ban or regulate murderous assholes you will always have victims.
The manufacturer made a weapon for mass killing and that’s what it was used for. Completely irresponsible to sell a weapon for mass killing to the public.
 
The court cases will go nowhere. No way can a gun company be held liable for what people who buy their guns do.

The gun is the tool. The person using it is the weapon and unless you can control, ban or regulate murderous assholes you will always have victims.
The manufacturer made a weapon for mass killing and that’s what it was used for. Completely irresponsible to sell a weapon for mass killing to the public.

Nope. He made a weapon for people to hunt with and attend gun shows with. He's not responsible for murderous assholes.

What an idiot you are.
 
The court cases will go nowhere. No way can a gun company be held liable for what people who buy their guns do.

The gun is the tool. The person using it is the weapon and unless you can control, ban or regulate murderous assholes you will always have victims.
The manufacturer made a weapon for mass killing and that’s what it was used for. Completely irresponsible to sell a weapon for mass killing to the public.
Alcohol manufacturers a product that specificly designed and sole purpose is to get a person drunk
 
The court cases will go nowhere. No way can a gun company be held liable for what people who buy their guns do.

The gun is the tool. The person using it is the weapon and unless you can control, ban or regulate murderous assholes you will always have victims.
The manufacturer made a weapon for mass killing and that’s what it was used for. Completely irresponsible to sell a weapon for mass killing to the public.

Nope. He made a weapon for people to hunt with and attend gun shows with. He's not responsible for murderous assholes.

What an idiot you are.

To hunt? To defend yourself against a herd of charging moose?
 
The court cases will go nowhere. No way can a gun company be held liable for what people who buy their guns do.

The gun is the tool. The person using it is the weapon and unless you can control, ban or regulate murderous assholes you will always have victims.
The manufacturer made a weapon for mass killing and that’s what it was used for. Completely irresponsible to sell a weapon for mass killing to the public.

Nope. He made a weapon for people to hunt with and attend gun shows with. He's not responsible for murderous assholes.

What an idiot you are.

To hunt? To defend yourself against a herd of charging moose?

Ever seen a moose up close and personal? I have. LOL

No one points a gun at anyone's head to buy a gun. That's a choice each person makes for themselves.

Find a way to ban, regulate and prohibit murderous assholes and you won't have murders.

The gun is the tool. The person using it is the weapon.
 
The court cases will go nowhere. No way can a gun company be held liable for what people who buy their guns do.

The gun is the tool. The person using it is the weapon and unless you can control, ban or regulate murderous assholes you will always have victims.
The manufacturer made a weapon for mass killing and that’s what it was used for. Completely irresponsible to sell a weapon for mass killing to the public.

you can say the same thing about a car.

The weapon was legal to produce, legal to sell.
 
The court cases will go nowhere. No way can a gun company be held liable for what people who buy their guns do.

The gun is the tool. The person using it is the weapon and unless you can control, ban or regulate murderous assholes you will always have victims.

At best they will find a sucker jury, win at trial, and lose on appeal.
 
The court cases will go nowhere. No way can a gun company be held liable for what people who buy their guns do.

The gun is the tool. The person using it is the weapon and unless you can control, ban or regulate murderous assholes you will always have victims.

At best they will find a sucker jury, win at trial, and lose on appeal.

Maybe. But boycotting the State is a better choice. Then they will close the legal loophole and allow Gun Makers the same legal protections that Car and Airplane manufacturers have.
 
After the already discussed to death decision of the Supreme Court in Remington v. Soto, there is one question left to discuss. What do we do now. That is the topic of this thread. It is not about the Remington Decision, or the future litigation. It is about what the Gun Makers should do now.

The answer is obvious. Boycott any and all sales to Connecticut. No sales, no way, to anyone. No guns, no ammunition, nothing. Not to the Cops, not to the citizens. Just pull out of the State entirely. The question now is how long before the same Politicians and Pundits who are demanding just this, would be up there like Foghorn Leghorn demanding these same companies ship guns and ammunition in to the Police?

If the are going to hold Remington responsible for the actions of the individual in one case, why not others? Why not sue Glock when a cop shoots a guy? Why not sue Smith and Wesson when the State Patrolman kills a motorist? If the maker of the weapon is responsible, we can’t risk it. We have to pull out of the State. Same thing with Ammunition Sales. In the 1980’s when Hollow-points were starting to be adapted by Police, the Lawyers claimed this ammunition was so vile, so awful it was prohibited by the Geneva Convention. It took years before the truth started to get out. How long before someone sues Hornady because the bullet expanded and killed the victim of a police shooting?

So the answer is this. Boycott Connecticut. All Gun Makers should cease all sales in the state. All Ammunition Manufacturers should also cease all sales. One of the worst things you can do to someone, is give them what they say they want. Then stand back and enjoy the chaos.

So let me get this straight. The way to respond to an attack against their sales potential, is to sell less? What next? Restore fiscal conservatism by taking the debt up to $23 trillion?
 
The court cases will go nowhere. No way can a gun company be held liable for what people who buy their guns do.

The gun is the tool. The person using it is the weapon and unless you can control, ban or regulate murderous assholes you will always have victims.
The manufacturer made a weapon for mass killing and that’s what it was used for. Completely irresponsible to sell a weapon for mass killing to the public.
Alcohol manufacturers a product that specificly designed and sole purpose is to get a person drunk

You're right, alcohol producers DO sell a product specifically designed to get a person intoxicated. And, the primary purpose of a bar is to sell those products that get people intoxicated.

And, here in Texas, if a bartender serves alcohol to a person who is obviously drunk, they can ALSO be held liable. Same thing if you host a party with alcohol and someone leaves drunk and has a wreck.

Texas Liquor Laws & Liability for Drunk Driving Accidents

Texas has two laws that make other individuals and businesses liable for drunk driving crashes. One is known as a "dram shop law." This makes restaurants and bars liable for overserving alcohol to customers. The other is called the "social host law." This makes party hosts-as well as restaurants and bars-liable if they knowingly serve alcohol to underage drinkers.


Injured people and the families of those who died in crashes caused by intoxicated drivers can file civil lawsuits against the bars, restaurants and individuals who violated these laws. In addition, businesses and individuals may face criminal charges and penalties if convicted.
 
After the already discussed to death decision of the Supreme Court in Remington v. Soto, there is one question left to discuss. What do we do now. That is the topic of this thread. It is not about the Remington Decision, or the future litigation. It is about what the Gun Makers should do now.

The answer is obvious. Boycott any and all sales to Connecticut. No sales, no way, to anyone. No guns, no ammunition, nothing. Not to the Cops, not to the citizens. Just pull out of the State entirely. The question now is how long before the same Politicians and Pundits who are demanding just this, would be up there like Foghorn Leghorn demanding these same companies ship guns and ammunition in to the Police?

If the are going to hold Remington responsible for the actions of the individual in one case, why not others? Why not sue Glock when a cop shoots a guy? Why not sue Smith and Wesson when the State Patrolman kills a motorist? If the maker of the weapon is responsible, we can’t risk it. We have to pull out of the State. Same thing with Ammunition Sales. In the 1980’s when Hollow-points were starting to be adapted by Police, the Lawyers claimed this ammunition was so vile, so awful it was prohibited by the Geneva Convention. It took years before the truth started to get out. How long before someone sues Hornady because the bullet expanded and killed the victim of a police shooting?

So the answer is this. Boycott Connecticut. All Gun Makers should cease all sales in the state. All Ammunition Manufacturers should also cease all sales. One of the worst things you can do to someone, is give them what they say they want. Then stand back and enjoy the chaos.

So let me get this straight. The way to respond to an attack against their sales potential, is to sell less? What next? Restore fiscal conservatism by taking the debt up to $23 trillion?

Isn't that how Trump is trying to restore fiscal conservatism?
 
The court cases will go nowhere. No way can a gun company be held liable for what people who buy their guns do.

The gun is the tool. The person using it is the weapon and unless you can control, ban or regulate murderous assholes you will always have victims.
The manufacturer made a weapon for mass killing and that’s what it was used for. Completely irresponsible to sell a weapon for mass killing to the public.
Alcohol manufacturers a product that specificly designed and sole purpose is to get a person drunk

You're right, alcohol producers DO sell a product specifically designed to get a person intoxicated. And, the primary purpose of a bar is to sell those products that get people intoxicated.

And, here in Texas, if a bartender serves alcohol to a person who is obviously drunk, they can ALSO be held liable. Same thing if you host a party with alcohol and someone leaves drunk and has a wreck.

Texas Liquor Laws & Liability for Drunk Driving Accidents

Texas has two laws that make other individuals and businesses liable for drunk driving crashes. One is known as a "dram shop law." This makes restaurants and bars liable for overserving alcohol to customers. The other is called the "social host law." This makes party hosts-as well as restaurants and bars-liable if they knowingly serve alcohol to underage drinkers.


Injured people and the families of those who died in crashes caused by intoxicated drivers can file civil lawsuits against the bars, restaurants and individuals who violated these laws. In addition, businesses and individuals may face criminal charges and penalties if convicted.
And a gun dealer can refuse a sale to someone they view as incompetent
But you don't see people going after makers of alcohol that would hit a lot of politicians
 
The court cases will go nowhere. No way can a gun company be held liable for what people who buy their guns do.

The gun is the tool. The person using it is the weapon and unless you can control, ban or regulate murderous assholes you will always have victims.
The manufacturer made a weapon for mass killing and that’s what it was used for. Completely irresponsible to sell a weapon for mass killing to the public.
Alcohol manufacturers a product that specificly designed and sole purpose is to get a person drunk

You're right, alcohol producers DO sell a product specifically designed to get a person intoxicated. And, the primary purpose of a bar is to sell those products that get people intoxicated.

And, here in Texas, if a bartender serves alcohol to a person who is obviously drunk, they can ALSO be held liable. Same thing if you host a party with alcohol and someone leaves drunk and has a wreck.

Texas Liquor Laws & Liability for Drunk Driving Accidents

Texas has two laws that make other individuals and businesses liable for drunk driving crashes. One is known as a "dram shop law." This makes restaurants and bars liable for overserving alcohol to customers. The other is called the "social host law." This makes party hosts-as well as restaurants and bars-liable if they knowingly serve alcohol to underage drinkers.


Injured people and the families of those who died in crashes caused by intoxicated drivers can file civil lawsuits against the bars, restaurants and individuals who violated these laws. In addition, businesses and individuals may face criminal charges and penalties if convicted.
And a gun dealer can refuse a sale to someone they view as incompetent
But you don't see people going after makers of alcohol that would hit a lot of politicians

They might not go after the alcohol producers, but they damn sure will go after the bar owners. I know, I was a manager of a biker bar called Boondocks here in Amarillo for 4 years, and we were constantly reminded that we could be held liable if we overserved someone. And yeah, I've seen bar owners and workers be sued for stuff like that.
 
The court cases will go nowhere. No way can a gun company be held liable for what people who buy their guns do.

The gun is the tool. The person using it is the weapon and unless you can control, ban or regulate murderous assholes you will always have victims.
The manufacturer made a weapon for mass killing and that’s what it was used for. Completely irresponsible to sell a weapon for mass killing to the public.
Alcohol manufacturers a product that specificly designed and sole purpose is to get a person drunk

You're right, alcohol producers DO sell a product specifically designed to get a person intoxicated. And, the primary purpose of a bar is to sell those products that get people intoxicated.

And, here in Texas, if a bartender serves alcohol to a person who is obviously drunk, they can ALSO be held liable. Same thing if you host a party with alcohol and someone leaves drunk and has a wreck.

Texas Liquor Laws & Liability for Drunk Driving Accidents

Texas has two laws that make other individuals and businesses liable for drunk driving crashes. One is known as a "dram shop law." This makes restaurants and bars liable for overserving alcohol to customers. The other is called the "social host law." This makes party hosts-as well as restaurants and bars-liable if they knowingly serve alcohol to underage drinkers.


Injured people and the families of those who died in crashes caused by intoxicated drivers can file civil lawsuits against the bars, restaurants and individuals who violated these laws. In addition, businesses and individuals may face criminal charges and penalties if convicted.
And a gun dealer can refuse a sale to someone they view as incompetent
But you don't see people going after makers of alcohol that would hit a lot of politicians

They might not go after the alcohol producers, but they damn sure will go after the bar owners. I know, I was a manager of a biker bar called Boondocks here in Amarillo for 4 years, and we were constantly reminded that we could be held liable if we overserved someone. And yeah, I've seen bar owners and workers be sued for stuff like that.
on the flip side, the supreme court ruled Remington can be sued how long will it take for this ruling to affect other industries?
 
I know, I was a manager of a biker bar called Boondocks here in Amarillo for 4 years, and we were constantly reminded that we could be held liable if we overserved someone. And yeah, I've seen bar owners and workers be sued for stuff like that.

Baloney....an injured party can go after the bartender and waitress if there was one, not the owner.
 
I know, I was a manager of a biker bar called Boondocks here in Amarillo for 4 years, and we were constantly reminded that we could be held liable if we overserved someone. And yeah, I've seen bar owners and workers be sued for stuff like that.

Baloney....an injured party can go after the bartender and waitress if there was one, not the owner.
They can go after the owners
 
The court cases will go nowhere. No way can a gun company be held liable for what people who buy their guns do.

The gun is the tool. The person using it is the weapon and unless you can control, ban or regulate murderous assholes you will always have victims.
The manufacturer made a weapon for mass killing and that’s what it was used for. Completely irresponsible to sell a weapon for mass killing to the public.
Alcohol manufacturers a product that specificly designed and sole purpose is to get a person drunk

You're right, alcohol producers DO sell a product specifically designed to get a person intoxicated. And, the primary purpose of a bar is to sell those products that get people intoxicated.

And, here in Texas, if a bartender serves alcohol to a person who is obviously drunk, they can ALSO be held liable. Same thing if you host a party with alcohol and someone leaves drunk and has a wreck.

Texas Liquor Laws & Liability for Drunk Driving Accidents

Texas has two laws that make other individuals and businesses liable for drunk driving crashes. One is known as a "dram shop law." This makes restaurants and bars liable for overserving alcohol to customers. The other is called the "social host law." This makes party hosts-as well as restaurants and bars-liable if they knowingly serve alcohol to underage drinkers.


Injured people and the families of those who died in crashes caused by intoxicated drivers can file civil lawsuits against the bars, restaurants and individuals who violated these laws. In addition, businesses and individuals may face criminal charges and penalties if convicted.
And a gun dealer can refuse a sale to someone they view as incompetent
But you don't see people going after makers of alcohol that would hit a lot of politicians

They might not go after the alcohol producers, but they damn sure will go after the bar owners. I know, I was a manager of a biker bar called Boondocks here in Amarillo for 4 years, and we were constantly reminded that we could be held liable if we overserved someone. And yeah, I've seen bar owners and workers be sued for stuff like that.

Perhaps it's because the bar tender knew they were causing a potential problem. When you manufacture firearms, you have no idea if somebody will use them to illegally kill other people.

Apple computers manufacture great computers with the hopes they will be used for good things and to benefit people. But if somebody uses an iMac to lure children into allies, or lure somebody off of Craigslist for a robbery, you don't sue Macintosh.
 

Forum List

Back
Top