Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
They can go after the owners
Interesting point how about hackers? could IBM be sued if it was found that hackers were using their computers they manufacture for illegal purposes that caused great harm?And a gun dealer can refuse a sale to someone they view as incompetentAlcohol manufacturers a product that specificly designed and sole purpose is to get a person drunkThe 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'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.
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.
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.
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.
Interesting point how about hackers? could IBM be sued if it was found that hackers were using their computers they manufacture for illegal purposes that caused great harm?And a gun dealer can refuse a sale to someone they view as incompetentAlcohol 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.
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.
It might depend on the state I could be wrong but I believe the owner is responsible for his employee's actions at least with the loss of their liquor licensesThey can go after the owners
I owned a small nightclub...they can go after anybody they please but an owner isn't expected to observe his customers level of intoxication....that's the bartender and waitress' job, at least in Arizona. I've never heard of a bar being closed for that....insurance covers that kind of thing.
Yes! All 50 States, please.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.
Some context to what your talking about would be nice. I don't live in Connecticut and have no idea what you're talking about.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.
Hell why not if we are going to blame others for the actions of one person everybody should take a hit when wrong is done.Interesting point how about hackers? could IBM be sued if it was found that hackers were using their computers they manufacture for illegal purposes that caused great harm?And a gun dealer can refuse a sale to someone they view as incompetentYou'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.
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.
Sure, why not?
I don't know about down south, but up north, we suffer dozens of drownings every summer season. It happens in the lake, in pools, just a mess. So should we hold boar companies and pool manufacturers responsible for their deaths? After all, we know drownings happen every single summer.
Nonsense.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 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.
Libtards never leave their parents house. So no, he's probably never seen any moose but BulwinkleThe 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.
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.
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.
It might depend on the state I could be wrong but I believe the owner is responsible for his employee's actions at least with the loss of their liquor licenses
Whose suing Remington? If not residents of Connecticut. who then?Nonsense.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 suit against Remington has nothing to do with residents of Connecticut.
The thread premise is as ridiculous as it is wrong.
And a gun dealer can refuse a sale to someone they view as incompetentAlcohol manufacturers a product that specificly designed and sole purpose is to get a person drunkThe 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.
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.
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.
Yes, they should.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.
ok very wellIt might depend on the state I could be wrong but I believe the owner is responsible for his employee's actions at least with the loss of their liquor licenses
Nah,....the license can only be lost for repeated violations like police reported fights or serving minors. If a bar is closed for being too close to a school or church, or whatever, the owner can sell the license to another party. In some cases a liquor license can be worth a million dollars.
Nonsense.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 suit against Remington has nothing to do with residents of Connecticut.
The thread premise is as ridiculous as it is wrong.
Hell why not if we are going to blame others for the actions of one person everybody should take a hit when wrong is done.Interesting point how about hackers? could IBM be sued if it was found that hackers were using their computers they manufacture for illegal purposes that caused great harm?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.
Sure, why not?
I don't know about down south, but up north, we suffer dozens of drownings every summer season. It happens in the lake, in pools, just a mess. So should we hold boar companies and pool manufacturers responsible for their deaths? After all, we know drownings happen every single summer.
I can see it but why can't these approved "smart people"? lolHell why not if we are going to blame others for the actions of one person everybody should take a hit when wrong is done.Interesting point how about hackers? could IBM be sued if it was found that hackers were using their computers they manufacture for illegal purposes that caused great harm?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.
Sure, why not?
I don't know about down south, but up north, we suffer dozens of drownings every summer season. It happens in the lake, in pools, just a mess. So should we hold boar companies and pool manufacturers responsible for their deaths? After all, we know drownings happen every single summer.
If successful, look for every ambulance chaser in the field to be holding manufacturers of all kinds of products liable.
