Sandy Hook Parents, Remington agree to $73 million settlement

[JoeB131]

He understands...he just doesn't care...he is a racist and a fascist.....he wants people disarmed so they can't defend themselves against him and his leftist goon squads...

Nope, I worry about crazy ***** like you with guns. Frankly, the best argument for gun control is a five minute conversation with a gun fetishist.

 

[JoeB131]

Here is a collage of photos of every person convicted, charged or wanted in connection with the shooting of 4+ people or who were killed or killed themselves before they could be charged in 2021.

Yes, we know you are racist. We got that. You needs you your guns to protect you from the darkies!!!

 

[JoeB131]

I've enjoyed debating gun rights vs gun control for over 30 years. My replies to a person like @JoeB131 are rarely directed to them and are never made with any expectation that I would convince them of anything.

I quote their statements and arguments the way I do to deconstruct them and I rebut / refute / destroy them precisely point by point, to show to people interested in the topic that everything anti-gun rights people say is wrong or a least emotional drivel, unconnected to any legal principle.

Yawn, guy, you are a legend in your own mind.

The reality- when the gun industry was exposed for what it is, someone selling a dangerous product to unstable people, they folded like a cheap suit.

 

[Abatis]

Yawn... your argument ignores the fact that Remington raised the white flag.

Whatever, you are very experienced in constructing false narratives to maintain your incorrect opinions so nothing new here. Remington declared bankruptcy and liquidated leaving the insurance companies to resolve the case. No liability or responsibility was ever assigned to or assumed by Remington and soon the entire suit will be withdrawn.

Since the other gun makers engage in the same reckeless behavior... um, yeah, the other gun makers are screwed.

I would recomend you read the CT supreme court opinion rendered before the settlement. At least then you might act like you know what the kitchen sink was initially being argued by the plaintiffs, what the court said was a no-go and what theory actually survived to be heard at trial (that never happened) and perhaps you would then realize you don't have any clue what the F you are talking about.

Except the gun makers market specifically to the crazies, that's kind of the point. There's really no market for the guy who bought a gun once because he was nervous during a crime spike, put it in the closet and forgot about it.

The real money to be made is marketing to the crazies...

Well, that's all wild conjecture and wishful thinking garbage with zero relationship to any legal argument from the Remington lawsuit.

Come on, tell us true, how many guns do you own?

Between one and fifty.

Okay, didn't you clowns say that this would never get to a settlement?

I never did, my only comments on this lawsuit are in this thread.
.

Yes, we know you are racist. We got that. You needs you your guns to protect you from the darkies!!!

And that's how a leftist wackjob tells everyone they have nothing worthwhile to say and knows they lost the debate.

 

[Abatis]

Yawn, guy, you are a legend in your own mind.

It is a pity the stupidity anti-gunner argument has devolved into.

Back in the early 90's you guys had the lower federal court case law on your side and there were many good debaters that could formulate logical, reasoned and supported, law-based argument. Ahhh, the good old days on USENET, the talk.politics.guns newsgroup.

And then Emerson came down and then Heller and whew! Your brains broke.

The reality- when the gun industry was exposed for what it is, someone selling a dangerous product to unstable people, they folded like a cheap suit.

Just because you preface your statement with "reality" doesn't' mean it is. In fact I can be sure it is your personal fantasy, disconnected from law or the Constitution and usually, common sense.

.

 

[JoeB131]

Wow, it's fun watching the gun nuts cry in their beer.

Whatever, you are very experienced in constructing false narratives to maintain your incorrect opinions so nothing new here. Remington declared bankruptcy and liquidated leaving the insurance companies to resolve the case. No liability or responsibility was ever assigned to or assumed by Remington and soon the entire suit will be withdrawn.

Uh, guy, when your forced to declare bankruptcy AND your insurance companies fold like a cheap suit, that means you lost.

I would recomend you read the CT supreme court opinion rendered before the settlement. At least then you might act like you know what the kitchen sink was initially being argued by the plaintiffs, what the court said was a no-go and what theory actually survived to be heard at trial (that never happened) and perhaps you would then realize you don't have any clue what the F you are talking about.

Okay, you keep telling yourself that you didn't get completely spanked on this one. I imagine it's only a matter of time before we see lawyers on TV with commercials, "Did you or a loved one suffer because of gun violence? You may be entitled to compensation!!!"

And that's how a leftist wackjob tells everyone they have nothing worthwhile to say and knows they lost the debate.

Oh, get real, the person who lost the debate is the one who says, "It's okay that we have gun violence, because it was a bunch of darkies involved!"

And to a degree, you have a point. If we gave as much of a shit about the black children being mowed down by "Second Amendment Enthusiasts" as we do about some white preschoolers, we'd have banned guns by now.

 

[playtime]

No "precedent" is created, no grounds for lawsuits were created that extend to other states. The settlement is legally just a "go away" surrender to fancy lawyering extortion, nothing else.



.

uh-huh. just like the 'law' in texas re: putting bounties on the heads of women & those that help them obtain a legal procedure can now be used in other states when it comes to firearms.

 

[playtime]

"Precedent" is set when a court rules on an issue.
There's no precedent set in a case settled out of court.
Please - try harder.

BREAKING|Feb 18, 2022,03:22pm EST|9,699 views

California Moves Forward With Gun Control Bill That Mimics Structure Of Texas Abortion Ban​

Updated Feb 18, 2022, 03:26pm EST

TOPLINE​

California officials on Friday threw their weight behind legislation that would let private citizens sue firearm manufacturers and distributors if they violate the state’s assault weapons ban or other gun control measures—the first state effort to mimic the structure of Texas’ near-total ban on abortions for a different political issue.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) announced Assembly Bill 1594 (AB 1594) Friday and Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) spoke out in support of it at a press conference, promoting the legislation after the governor first suggested it in December and state lawmakers introduced it in January.
The bill would let anyone, including private citizens, bring civil lawsuits against “gun industry members” whose violations of federal, state or local gun control laws “[cause]
injury or death,” or who have engaged in “unfair business practices.”

The Associated Press notes the bill would let people sue over violations of California’s assault weapons ban, or if gun dealers knowingly sell firearms to people who can’t legally own them.
Newsom noted Friday the bill could also help people sue over “ghost guns”—untraceable firearm kits that people can buy without a background check and assemble at home—which have become a growing issue in California and have already prompted multiple local bans and lawsuits for deceptive trade practices.
The bill’s provision allowing lawsuits copies Texas’ Senate Bill 8 (SB 8), which bans nearly all abortions in the state after six weeks into a pregnancy and is enforced through private lawsuits against anyone who “aids or abets” an abortion.

Newsom said Friday he’s confident the U.S. Supreme Court, which has repeatedly declined to strike down SB 8, could not overturn AB 1594, because “it is quite literally modeled after the law they just upheld in Texas.”
California Moves Forward With Gun Control Bill That Mimics Structure Of Texas Abortion Ban

that precedent was set using a court ruling & is now applied to a completely different subject. so are you saying that since the remington 'settlement' was outa court, the framework cannot be used in another case that involves the manufacturing & marketing of other firearms?

 

[playtime]

Because you chose to remain ignorant of the issue at hand, and illustrate that ignorance in your post.
Well done.

seems yer ignorant of the precedent the texas law set up allowing other states to use & now 'marketing' no doubt will also re: yer special phallic symbols.

lol ... you sound a tad CONcerned there shooter boy.

good.

 

[playtime]

btw - CT doesn't have some of the 'strictest' gun 'restrictions' in the nation .... they have some of the strongest PROTECTIONS.

i live in CT, & have several firearms in my home, legally owned by hubby; from simmple BB guns & air pistols to a glock to .22 long guns & shot guns. he has NEVER had a problem obtaining one or getting ammo. & he has a license to carry.

 

[Abatis]

Wow, it's fun watching the gun nuts cry in their beer.

It's even more fun watching leftist anti-gunners dissemble, deflect and discombobulate.

Uh, guy, when your forced to declare bankruptcy AND your insurance companies fold like a cheap suit, that means you lost.

I've only explained the settlement and the law; I can't "lose" anything. You are simply wrong and inflating what happened and its effect far beyond what it is. Just like Kash Patel was wrong in claiming Durham's filing said Trumps servers were "infiltrated", you are doing the exact same stupid ******* shit with this.

Okay, you keep telling yourself that you didn't get completely spanked on this one.

You have yet to show exactly what I'm wrong about in the law or how I have explained the settlement incorrectly.

I imagine it's only a matter of time before we see lawyers on TV with commercials, "Did you or a loved one suffer because of gun violence? You may be entitled to compensation!!!"

No doubt for opportunistic vultures, but without a law like CT's they are wasting their time.

Oh, get real, the person who lost the debate is the one who says, "It's okay that we have gun violence, because it was a bunch of darkies involved!"

No, the person who loses the debate is always the one that continuously violates Fundamentals of Debate 101; throwing out logical fallacies is the practice of low intellect losers.

The person who loses the debate is always the one that never actually rebuts he argument presented to him and instead invents statements and positions for his opponent that were never uttered by his opponent.

And to a degree, you have a point. If we gave as much of a shit about the black children being mowed down by "Second Amendment Enthusiasts" as we do about some white preschoolers, we'd have banned guns by now.

You are incapable of understanding my point. Your thinking is so polluted and corrupted by leftist ideological dogma you are immune to rational, fact based discussion. All you can compose in that crippled brain is "racist!"

.

 

[Abatis]

uh-huh. just like the 'law' in texas re: putting bounties on the heads of women & those that help them obtain a legal procedure can now be used in other states when it comes to firearms.

So you're another one of them, huh; you find it impossible to maintain continuity . . . As soon as one of your asinine opinions is demonstrated to be, well, asinine, you jet off onto another tangent.

So no, there is no "just like" and certainly not "just like" the hyperbolic way you characterize the Texas law.

Is being so disingenuous a natural thing or is it taught at 'how to become an obnoxious leftist anti-gunner' school?

 

[M14 Shooter]

uh-huh. just like the 'law' in texas re: putting bounties on the heads of women & those that help them obtain a legal procedure...

Illegal procedure.

can now be used in other states when it comes to firearms.

Only if it is illegal for them to own a firearm.

 

[M14 Shooter]

California officials on Friday threw their weight behind legislation that would let private citizens sue firearm manufacturers and distributors if they violate the state’s assault weapons ban or other gun control measures

Yes. And so, someone has to violate the law.
If no one violates the law, there's no lawsuit.
Just like in TX.

 

[M14 Shooter]

seems yer ignorant of the precedent the texas law set up allowing other states to use & now 'marketing' no doubt will also re: yer special phallic symbols.

Thank you for further demonstrating your ignorance.

 

[M14 Shooter]

btw - CT doesn't have some of the 'strictest' gun 'restrictions' in the nation .... they have some of the strongest PROTECTIONS.

CT gun laws do nothing to protect the rights of the law abiding - gun owners or otherwise.
Remember Sandyhook? Happened in CT.
Why?
CT's unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of the law abiding do not work.

 

[JoeB131]

I've only explained the settlement and the law; I can't "lose" anything. You are simply wrong and inflating what happened and its effect far beyond what it is. Just like Kash Patel was wrong in claiming Durham's filing said Trumps servers were "infiltrated", you are doing the exact same stupid ******* shit with this.

Oh, please, we've had 14 pages of gun fetishists screaming like stuck pigs, because the gun industry might actually clean up their act.

No, the person who loses the debate is always the one that continuously violates Fundamentals of Debate 101; throwing out logical fallacies is the practice of low intellect losers.

This isn't some *****-ass high school debate, buddy.

You are incapable of understanding my point. Your thinking is so polluted and corrupted by leftist ideological dogma you are immune to rational, fact based discussion. All you can compose in that crippled brain is "racist!"

uh, you are the one who put up a bunch of pictures of people of color... not me.

 

[playtime]

Illegal procedure.

false.

 

[playtime]

Yes. And so, someone has to violate the law.
If no one violates the law, there's no lawsuit.
Just like in TX.

federal law - which supersedes state laws

Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions.

states that abortion is legal until viability.

' 6 weeks ' gestation is well below viability.

 

[playtime]

Thank you for further demonstrating your ignorance.

& yet remington lost.

seems you can't get over that factoid.

that case was the 'first' & you think there will never be another one?

lol....