Supreme Court Allows Sandy Hook Families' Case Against Remington Arms To Proceed

[Lysistrata]

This manufacturer deliberately marketed a product that was dangerous when used as intended. The violence implied in its marketing campaign serves to highlight this fact.

This lawsuit aside, it is a fact that there is no legitimate use of this product.

That there are millions of these guns in circulation, and the overwhelming vast majority of them are only ever used for legitimate uses, puts the lie to your absurd statement.

Exactly what are these "legitimate" uses?

 

[Polishprince]

This manufacturer deliberately marketed a product that was dangerous when used as intended. The violence implied in its marketing campaign serves to highlight this fact.

This lawsuit aside, it is a fact that there is no legitimate use of this product.

That there are millions of these guns in circulation, and the overwhelming vast majority of them are only ever used for legitimate uses, puts the lie to your absurd statement.

Exactly what are these "legitimate" uses?

Self defense is a very legitimate use for a so-called "assault weapon".

Some people need that kind of firepower. When Obama was in the WH, he had trained, heavily armed bodyguards on duty with assault weapons.

Sort of hypocritical to complain about the needs of others.


Let me recommend the film Death Wish 3 to you.

Bronson is faced with a large gang of vicious criminals, a revolver just would not have been that useful in East New York

 

[Lysistrata]

This manufacturer deliberately marketed a product that was dangerous when used as intended.

What it's intended for is irrelevant. Until someone uses it to kill, it won't kill anyone. The atom bomb was made to kill people but it hasn't killed anyone in seventy four years.

The violence implied in its marketing campaign serves to highlight this fact.

These kinds of firearms are marketed to men who think it makes them more of a man. That's it.

This lawsuit aside, it is a fact that there is no legitimate use of this product.

If it's legitimate - and it is - then someone has a use for it.

You and people like you don't have a problem with the gun, you have a problem with the type of people who buy them.

A product is judged by analysis of whether it is safe when it is used for its intended purpose. The high degree of danger to the public posed by this product far outweighs the supposed importance of catering to the sexual "needs" of a small number of people with psychological problems.

 

[2aguy]

This manufacturer deliberately marketed a product that was dangerous when used as intended.

What it's intended for is irrelevant. Until someone uses it to kill, it won't kill anyone. The atom bomb was made to kill people but it hasn't killed anyone in seventy four years.

The violence implied in its marketing campaign serves to highlight this fact.

These kinds of firearms are marketed to men who think it makes them more of a man. That's it.

This lawsuit aside, it is a fact that there is no legitimate use of this product.

If it's legitimate - and it is - then someone has a use for it.

You and people like you don't have a problem with the gun, you have a problem with the type of people who buy them.

A product is judged by analysis of whether it is safe when it is used for its intended purpose. The high degree of danger to the public posed by this product far outweighs the supposed importance of catering to the sexual "needs" of a small number of people with psychological problems.

Again with the gun is a penis mental illness that you anti-gunners seem to be afflicted with............


18 million AR-15s in private hands in the U.S.....

Total number of people killed with AR-15s and Ak-47 civilian models in 2018? 39.

Total number of people killed by cars in 2017...... over 38,000

So....the sexual needs of car owners apparently kill more people than these rifles...and it isn't even close...so the sexual needs of car owners are being catered to and they are killing over 38,000 people a year........

Boy, you sure are stupid.

 

[2aguy]

This manufacturer deliberately marketed a product that was dangerous when used as intended. The violence implied in its marketing campaign serves to highlight this fact.

This lawsuit aside, it is a fact that there is no legitimate use of this product.

That there are millions of these guns in circulation, and the overwhelming vast majority of them are only ever used for legitimate uses, puts the lie to your absurd statement.

Exactly what are these "legitimate" uses?

Self defense, hunting and competition.......18 million AR-15s in private hands.

Total number of people killed in mass public shootings with AR-15 rifles in 2018?...less than 39.

Total number of people killed by cars in 2017? over 38,000.

 

[2aguy]

This manufacturer deliberately marketed a product that was dangerous when used as intended.

What it's intended for is irrelevant. Until someone uses it to kill, it won't kill anyone. The atom bomb was made to kill people but it hasn't killed anyone in seventy four years.

The violence implied in its marketing campaign serves to highlight this fact.

These kinds of firearms are marketed to men who think it makes them more of a man. That's it.

This lawsuit aside, it is a fact that there is no legitimate use of this product.

If it's legitimate - and it is - then someone has a use for it.

You and people like you don't have a problem with the gun, you have a problem with the type of people who buy them.

A product is judged by analysis of whether it is safe when it is used for its intended purpose. The high degree of danger to the public posed by this product far outweighs the supposed importance of catering to the sexual "needs" of a small number of people with psychological problems.

They were already judged by the Supreme Court ........Heller v D.C, and the follow up Caetano v Massachusetts.......

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).



Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.






https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Nothing in that bans weapons by type........

Next...

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ” }}

the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time"........the AR-15 civilian rifle, in particular....is the most "common" rifle in the country, ......over 8 million of them in private hands and semi auto rifles there are over 16 million of them in private hands if not more......


And then, because lying judges on the 4th Circuit tried to use this argument to ban stun guns in Massachusetts, the Supreme Court had to slap them with the Caetano v. Massachusetts ruling...

This also re addresses the point about these weapons not existing when the Founders put the 2A in the Bill of Rights....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf
Opinion of the Court[edit]

In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

[7] Citing District of Columbia v. Heller[8] and McDonald v. City of Chicago,[9] the Court began its opinion by stating that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".[6]

The Court then identified three reasons why the Massachusetts court's opinion contradicted prior rulings by the United States Supreme Court.[1]

First, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted Heller's conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding”.[10]

Second, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns were "dangerous per se at common law and unusual" because they were "a thoroughly modern invention", but the Supreme Court held that this was also inconstant with Heller.[11]


Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

-----

----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).


That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.

If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------

The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.


But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.


Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.


554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.
In any event, the Supreme Judicial Court’s assumption that stun guns are unsuited for militia or military use is untenable.

 

[2aguy]

This manufacturer deliberately marketed a product that was dangerous when used as intended. The violence implied in its marketing campaign serves to highlight this fact.

This lawsuit aside, it is a fact that there is no legitimate use of this product.

There are over 18 million AR-15s in private hands in the U.S.....

Number of people killed with AR-15s in mass public shootings in 2018? Less than 39.

Knives are used to kill over 1,500 people every single year.....

Number of people killed by cars in 2017...... over 38,000.

Do you know if the shooter actually saw any of the advertising by Remington? You dope.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Considering the marketing slogans used by Remington, good for the Supreme Court to deny cert. "Consider your man card reissued." "the Sandy Hook families say Remington "published promotional materials that promised 'military-proven performance' for a 'mission-adaptable' shooter in need of the 'ultimate combat weapons system.' " "They also accuse the company of fostering a "lone gunman" narrative as it promoted the Bushmaster, citing an ad that proclaimed, "Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered."

This all is a direct appeal to those civilians who would be violent, including a sick identification of this weapon with masculinity. There is no legitimate use of this type of weapon in civilian U.S. society, and, when it is used for its intended purpose, it is lethal. There are other, less powerful guns that can be used for hunting or defending one's home against any invasion.

You were doing fine until “There is no legitimate use of this type of weapon in civilian U.S. society…”

That doesn’t have anything to do with the liability claim of the suit, which concerns solely the marketing of the carbine, not whether it has a ‘legitimate use.’

A manufacturer of AR 15s who markets its product in a responsible manner – absent references to combat, militarism, or ‘manliness’ – shouldn’t be subject to similar legal action.

Show me where I can find this legitimate use clause in the constitution?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This manufacturer deliberately marketed a product that was dangerous when used as intended. The violence implied in its marketing campaign serves to highlight this fact.

This lawsuit aside, it is a fact that there is no legitimate use of this product.

So when the litigation against Alcohol manufacturers start?
What is your authoritative qualification in self-defense to say what is and is not a legitimate use?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This manufacturer deliberately marketed a product that was dangerous when used as intended. The violence implied in its marketing campaign serves to highlight this fact.

This lawsuit aside, it is a fact that there is no legitimate use of this product.

That there are millions of these guns in circulation, and the overwhelming vast majority of them are only ever used for legitimate uses, puts the lie to your absurd statement.

Exactly what are these "legitimate" uses?

Where is that legitimate use clause in the Constitution?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

FYI this is the ad that caused all the fuss

“Papa Says It’s Safe”: 20 Astounding Gun Ads

 

[JoeB131]

Authorized to sell the car to the customer. Your point is not made.

Which means- following all the rules that they put down to sell their products... Point made. Remington doesn't do that... It markets to the most crazy people they can find.

Hate all little brown people/hate all rich people. Same prejudice, different flavor.

Well, no, the rich kind of deserve the contempt towards them... they fucked it up for the rest of us.

You see, pre-Reagan- we had it pretty ******* good. but the rich got too greedy.

Again, I don't own a Bible and I told you this already.

Whatever... you still throw in with the nuts. You probably think you are putting one over on them.

You may be right on all counts. Problem is, your heart is now poisoned against rich people and that compels you to want to punish all rich people to a point that goes way beyond "fair share".

Well, no. I think harvesting them for transplant organs would actually be harsh. Making them pay a fair tax rate, like they did before Reagan fucked it up... Um. Yeah.

You see, funny thing. Before Reagan, the rich paid their fair share. We had two world wars, built massive infrastructure, established a social welfare state AND put men on the moon... and our whole national debt was less than a trillion dollars after 200 years.

Then Ronnie Reagan came along. He started out with the Supply Side Bullshit that tax cuts would raise revenues, but that didn't happen, and today we are at 20 TRILLION in debt, we have bridges that are falling apart, etc.

n other words, proportionately more.

THeir fair share. Like they paid before Reagan.

Underachievers are always going to be underachievers if you just keep throwing money at them. And throwing money at women to pay for their mistakes just enables them to continue making their mistakes. Why stop when you know the government's going to pay for it anyway? Besides, I thought giving money to underachievers was your thing.

But you see, that's the problem. The government pays for the mistake by giving 20 years of assistance.. when a one time abortion is much cheaper.

Of course, the right wing is all for saving the fetus, but when they turn into a welfare recipiant, they are a leech and a parasite.

Again you reveal your ignorance. Pro-2nd Amendment advocates who feel threatened do not feel threatened by "darkies", they feel threatened by the government. The "darkies" are not the ones threatening to take their firearms.

Again, talk to some of your fellow "Second Amendment Advocates" on this board....

Unions tried to move into the industry I'm in a couple of times over the last thirty years and while I am not staunchly anti-union, I couldn't help but ask why they were trying so hard. The only answer to that is: $.

I found it hard to believe they were going to all this trouble because they were simply concerned with my workplace rights. If the union moves in, I lose income through union dues and the union gets richer. As for workplace rights, we already have an organization that looks out for our interests and they do a pretty good job of it. They fight for workplace rights and advocate for new and stricter safety rules, among other things. And the best part? We don't have to pay them anything.

Yeah, I used to think like that.. .Then I busted up my knee and it was amazing how fast my "organization" stopped looking out for my interests.

 

[JoeB131]

I know you're white. You're not the first white person I've seen to express contempt for his own race. Also, do your relatives know about your "Catholic bastards" remarks?

They know what a miserable experience my grammar school was. They generally avoid the subject. My favorite was when a nun who inflicted all sorts of abuse had the ******* nerve to say at my mom's funeral "God had to have a good reason". She was lucky I didn't punch her in the face.

Your ignorance is beyond scope. If you think Bibles and guns are all that conservatives are about then you are just as pinheaded as the pinheads you claim them to be.

no, they really are pinheads... Trust me, the dumb ass in the trailer park who clings to his gun and his bibles has no stake in "Capital Gains Tax Cuts", but he just don't cotton to them queers and them darkies.

The GOP economic agenda maybe, maybe benefits 20% of the population. Without the social agenda of playing on their religious, racial and sexual fears, they'd lose every election.

The 2nd Amendment is what helps keep them in business dumbass.

No, what keeps them in business is marketing to a mentally unstable part of the population.

Their key Demographic is not the guy who bought a gun back in the 1990's, stuck it in his closet and forgot about it. It's the hard core nut who thinks that he needs him more guns to fights the gummit and the darkies. Man, those people went nuts when Obama got elected, it was all their fears in one, and the Gun Manufacturers went out and screamed "OBAMA'S GOING TO TAKE YOUR GUNS!"

Ironically, the worst thing to happen to the gun industry was Trump getting elected...

 

[Rustic]

I know you're white. You're not the first white person I've seen to express contempt for his own race. Also, do your relatives know about your "Catholic bastards" remarks?

They know what a miserable experience my grammar school was. They generally avoid the subject. My favorite was when a nun who inflicted all sorts of abuse had the ******* nerve to say at my mom's funeral "God had to have a good reason". She was lucky I didn't punch her in the face.

Your ignorance is beyond scope. If you think Bibles and guns are all that conservatives are about then you are just as pinheaded as the pinheads you claim them to be.

no, they really are pinheads... Trust me, the dumb ass in the trailer park who clings to his gun and his bibles has no stake in "Capital Gains Tax Cuts", but he just don't cotton to them queers and them darkies.

The GOP economic agenda maybe, maybe benefits 20% of the population. Without the social agenda of playing on their religious, racial and sexual fears, they'd lose every election.

The 2nd Amendment is what helps keep them in business dumbass.

No, what keeps them in business is marketing to a mentally unstable part of the population.

Their key Demographic is not the guy who bought a gun back in the 1990's, stuck it in his closet and forgot about it. It's the hard core nut who thinks that he needs him more guns to fights the gummit and the darkies. Man, those people went nuts when Obama got elected, it was all their fears in one, and the Gun Manufacturers went out and screamed "OBAMA'S GOING TO TAKE YOUR GUNS!"

Ironically, the worst thing to happen to the gun industry was Trump getting elected...

Lol
Actually gun sales have stabilized since Trump was elected, no peaks and valleys in sales like the Obama years.
You come across as just another progressive *****… Yelling at people on the computer from your moms basement.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

This manufacturer deliberately marketed a product that was dangerous when used as intended.

What it's intended for is irrelevant. Until someone uses it to kill, it won't kill anyone. The atom bomb was made to kill people but it hasn't killed anyone in seventy four years.

The violence implied in its marketing campaign serves to highlight this fact.

These kinds of firearms are marketed to men who think it makes them more of a man. That's it.

This lawsuit aside, it is a fact that there is no legitimate use of this product.

If it's legitimate - and it is - then someone has a use for it.

You and people like you don't have a problem with the gun, you have a problem with the type of people who buy them.

A product is judged by analysis of whether it is safe when it is used for its intended purpose.

Judged by who? It's irrelevant anyway. Whatever the manufacturer's intent (and it's not for murder), if it's never used to kill, it will never kill.

The high degree of danger to the public posed by this product far outweighs the supposed importance of catering to the sexual "needs" of a small number of people with psychological problems.

A firearm is only as dangerous as the intent of the owner. And manufacturers are not liable for customers choosing to break the law with their product.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Authorized to sell the car to the customer. Your point is not made.

Which means- following all the rules that they put down to sell their products... Point made. Remington doesn't do that...

The manufacturer's rules pertain only to how to sell the product to garner sales. It is not within the purview of the manufacturer to dictate who to sell to anyway. That responsibility falls to the state or federal government. It is understood by both the seller and the manufacturer that the seller will abide by state and federal law and conduct the proper background checks and whatnot. Once again, point not made.

Your opinion on the culpability of the manufacturer is irrelevant. The law is the law and by law, only the dealer is ultimately responsible to sell the product responsibly direct to the customer.

It markets to the most crazy people they can find.

You're going to have to provide evidence that they market to crazy people. Otherwise this is just your overwrought sensibilities talking.

Hate all little brown people/hate all rich people. Same prejudice, different flavor.

Well, no, the rich kind of deserve the contempt towards them... they fucked it up for the rest of us.

You see, pre-Reagan- we had it pretty ******* good. but the rich got too greedy.

They didn't **** up anything for me. Besides, they can't **** people any more than the people allow them to.

Again, I don't own a Bible and I told you this already.

Whatever... you still throw in with the nuts. You probably think you are putting one over on them.

I had to tell you twice that I don't own a Bible because you don't pay attention to what you read and you have this insane mantra repeating in your head: "Bibles, guns, queers and darkies. Bibles, guns, queers and darkies. Bibles, guns...". So forgive me if I don't respond to this idiocy.

You may be right on all counts. Problem is, your heart is now poisoned against rich people and that compels you to want to punish all rich people to a point that goes way beyond "fair share".

Well, no. I think harvesting them for transplant organs would actually be harsh. Making them pay a fair tax rate, like they did before Reagan fucked it up... Um. Yeah.

You see, funny thing. Before Reagan, the rich paid their fair share. We had two world wars, built massive infrastructure, established a social welfare state AND put men on the moon... and our whole national debt was less than a trillion dollars after 200 years.

Then Ronnie Reagan came along. He started out with the Supply Side Bullshit that tax cuts would raise revenues, but that didn't happen, and today we are at 20 TRILLION in debt, we have bridges that are falling apart, etc.

So, what, you hate rich people because someone else told them they didn't have to pay that much anymore? If the government changed the tax laws to where every person who hates rich people (meaning you) would pay less in taxes, you wouldn't jump on it?

n other words, proportionately more.

THeir fair share. Like they paid before Reagan.

Underachievers are always going to be underachievers if you just keep throwing money at them. And throwing money at women to pay for their mistakes just enables them to continue making their mistakes. Why stop when you know the government's going to pay for it anyway? Besides, I thought giving money to underachievers was your thing.

But you see, that's the problem. The government pays for the mistake by giving 20 years of assistance.. when a one time abortion is much cheaper.

The government pays for the mistakes because the government pays for the mistakes. In other words, by continuing to pay for the mistakes, the cycle just continues and they keep making the mistakes. If the government stops paying for the mistakes, we wouldn't see as many mistakes.

Of course, the right wing is all for saving the fetus, but when they turn into a welfare recipiant, they are a leech and a parasite.

If they suckle off the government teat their entire lives without any real effort to improve their situation, then they ARE leeches and parasites. And they don't become leeches and parasites because they weren't aborted. Besides, the right wing does not suggest killing them for being leeches and parasites. The left wing however, just kills them before they're born so they won't become leeches and parasites. If they're not aborted and are allowed to live, they succeed or fail by their own hand and their own choices and no lives are snuffed out.

Again you reveal your ignorance. Pro-2nd Amendment advocates who feel threatened do not feel threatened by "darkies", they feel threatened by the government. The "darkies" are not the ones threatening to take their firearms.

Again, talk to some of your fellow "Second Amendment Advocates" on this board....

Quotes and links, please.

Unions tried to move into the industry I'm in a couple of times over the last thirty years and while I am not staunchly anti-union, I couldn't help but ask why they were trying so hard. The only answer to that is: $.

I found it hard to believe they were going to all this trouble because they were simply concerned with my workplace rights. If the union moves in, I lose income through union dues and the union gets richer. As for workplace rights, we already have an organization that looks out for our interests and they do a pretty good job of it. They fight for workplace rights and advocate for new and stricter safety rules, among other things. And the best part? We don't have to pay them anything.

Yeah, I used to think like that.. .Then I busted up my knee and it was amazing how fast my "organization" stopped looking out for my interests.

So every organization would drop me if I got injured? Prejudice much? And when you say "organization", do you mean your employer?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I know you're white. You're not the first white person I've seen to express contempt for his own race. Also, do your relatives know about your "Catholic bastards" remarks?

They know what a miserable experience my grammar school was. They generally avoid the subject. My favorite was when a nun who inflicted all sorts of abuse had the ******* nerve to say at my mom's funeral "God had to have a good reason". She was lucky I didn't punch her in the face.

Your personal experiences are irrelevant to the issue of Sandmann and his classmates. The actions of this ***** nun do not make Sandmann and his classmates "Catholic bastards."

Your ignorance is beyond scope. If you think Bibles and guns are all that conservatives are about then you are just as pinheaded as the pinheads you claim them to be.

no, they really are pinheads... Trust me, the dumb ass in the trailer park who clings to his gun and his bibles has no stake in "Capital Gains Tax Cuts", but he just don't cotton to them queers and them darkies.

"Bibles, guns, queers and darkies. Bibles, guns, queers and darkies. Bibles, guns..."

The GOP economic agenda maybe, maybe benefits 20% of the population. Without the social agenda of playing on their religious, racial and sexual fears, they'd lose every election.

Given your hatred of Catholics, I'd say you're the one with religious fears.

The 2nd Amendment is what helps keep them in business dumbass.

No, what keeps them in business is marketing to a mentally unstable part of the population.

If that's true, why haven't you bought one already?

Their key Demographic is not the guy who bought a gun back in the 1990's, stuck it in his closet and forgot about it. It's the hard core nut who thinks that he needs him more guns to fights the gummit and the darkies. Man, those people went nuts when Obama got elected, it was all their fears in one, and the Gun Manufacturers went out and screamed "OBAMA'S GOING TO TAKE YOUR GUNS!"

Isn't that precisely what pro-gun control advocates are after? I don't know what Obama had to say on the matter but it's well known by everyone that candidates like O'Rourke want to take AR-15 type firearms. And you and I both know that if that happens, handguns are next; "Well, we've come this far, might as well take the next step." Once they get their foot in the door they won't stop. You know this as well as I do.

 

[2aguy]

I know you're white. You're not the first white person I've seen to express contempt for his own race. Also, do your relatives know about your "Catholic bastards" remarks?

They know what a miserable experience my grammar school was. They generally avoid the subject. My favorite was when a nun who inflicted all sorts of abuse had the ******* nerve to say at my mom's funeral "God had to have a good reason". She was lucky I didn't punch her in the face.

Your personal experiences are irrelevant to the issue of Sandmann and his classmates. The actions of this ***** nun do not make Sandmann and his classmates "Catholic bastards."

Your ignorance is beyond scope. If you think Bibles and guns are all that conservatives are about then you are just as pinheaded as the pinheads you claim them to be.

no, they really are pinheads... Trust me, the dumb ass in the trailer park who clings to his gun and his bibles has no stake in "Capital Gains Tax Cuts", but he just don't cotton to them queers and them darkies.

"Bibles, guns, queers and darkies. Bibles, guns, queers and darkies. Bibles, guns..."

The GOP economic agenda maybe, maybe benefits 20% of the population. Without the social agenda of playing on their religious, racial and sexual fears, they'd lose every election.

Given your hatred of Catholics, I'd say you're the one with religious fears.

The 2nd Amendment is what helps keep them in business dumbass.

No, what keeps them in business is marketing to a mentally unstable part of the population.

If that's true, why haven't you bought one already?

Their key Demographic is not the guy who bought a gun back in the 1990's, stuck it in his closet and forgot about it. It's the hard core nut who thinks that he needs him more guns to fights the gummit and the darkies. Man, those people went nuts when Obama got elected, it was all their fears in one, and the Gun Manufacturers went out and screamed "OBAMA'S GOING TO TAKE YOUR GUNS!"

Isn't that precisely what pro-gun control advocates are after? I don't know what Obama had to say on the matter but it's well known by everyone that candidates like O'Rourke want to take AR-15 type firearms. And you and I both know that if that happens, handguns are next; "Well, we've come this far, might as well take the next step." Once they get their foot in the door they won't stop. You know this as well as I do.

Joe Biden, the leading democrat Presidential candidate just stated he doesn't think people should own military pistols, like 9mms......

Speaking at the ‘House of Amazon,’ Joe Biden gently raises company’s role in middle-class job losses

While saying he supports the Second Amendment, Biden called the absolutist arguments of some gun-rights supporters “bizarre.” Noting people can’t own machine guns or bazookas, Biden said, “Why should we allow people to have military-style weapons including pistols with 9-mm bullets and can hold 10 or more rounds?”

Now it is "absolutist' to own a semi-automatic pistol.....the most common type of pistol in the country.......

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I know you're white. You're not the first white person I've seen to express contempt for his own race. Also, do your relatives know about your "Catholic bastards" remarks?

They know what a miserable experience my grammar school was. They generally avoid the subject. My favorite was when a nun who inflicted all sorts of abuse had the ******* nerve to say at my mom's funeral "God had to have a good reason". She was lucky I didn't punch her in the face.

Your personal experiences are irrelevant to the issue of Sandmann and his classmates. The actions of this ***** nun do not make Sandmann and his classmates "Catholic bastards."

Your ignorance is beyond scope. If you think Bibles and guns are all that conservatives are about then you are just as pinheaded as the pinheads you claim them to be.

no, they really are pinheads... Trust me, the dumb ass in the trailer park who clings to his gun and his bibles has no stake in "Capital Gains Tax Cuts", but he just don't cotton to them queers and them darkies.

"Bibles, guns, queers and darkies. Bibles, guns, queers and darkies. Bibles, guns..."

The GOP economic agenda maybe, maybe benefits 20% of the population. Without the social agenda of playing on their religious, racial and sexual fears, they'd lose every election.

Given your hatred of Catholics, I'd say you're the one with religious fears.

The 2nd Amendment is what helps keep them in business dumbass.

No, what keeps them in business is marketing to a mentally unstable part of the population.

If that's true, why haven't you bought one already?

Their key Demographic is not the guy who bought a gun back in the 1990's, stuck it in his closet and forgot about it. It's the hard core nut who thinks that he needs him more guns to fights the gummit and the darkies. Man, those people went nuts when Obama got elected, it was all their fears in one, and the Gun Manufacturers went out and screamed "OBAMA'S GOING TO TAKE YOUR GUNS!"

Isn't that precisely what pro-gun control advocates are after? I don't know what Obama had to say on the matter but it's well known by everyone that candidates like O'Rourke want to take AR-15 type firearms. And you and I both know that if that happens, handguns are next; "Well, we've come this far, might as well take the next step." Once they get their foot in the door they won't stop. You know this as well as I do.

Joe Biden, the leading democrat Presidential candidate just stated he doesn't think people should own military pistols, like 9mms......

Speaking at the ‘House of Amazon,’ Joe Biden gently raises company’s role in middle-class job losses

While saying he supports the Second Amendment, Biden called the absolutist arguments of some gun-rights supporters “bizarre.” Noting people can’t own machine guns or bazookas, Biden said, “Why should we allow people to have military-style weapons including pistols with 9-mm bullets and can hold 10 or more rounds?”

Now it is "absolutist' to own a semi-automatic pistol.....the most common type of pistol in the country.......

And there you have it.

 

[JoeB131]

The manufacturer's rules pertain only to how to sell the product to garner sales. It is not within the purview of the manufacturer to dictate who to sell to anyway. That responsibility falls to the state or federal government. It is understood by both the seller and the manufacturer that the seller will abide by state and federal law and conduct the proper background checks and whatnot. Once again, point not made.

Your opinion on the culpability of the manufacturer is irrelevant. The law is the law and by law, only the dealer is ultimately responsible to sell the product responsibly direct to the customer.

One more time- when you put a military grade weapon on the civilian market and link it's ownership to "Manliness", you are making a statement about the kind of person you want to get it. When you are selling not a hunting weapons but a military weapon based on the fears of a Nancy Lanza (who again, was nuts) you are making a decision.

The Jury will look at those crime scene photos, and that will be pretty much the end of that case. Personally, I wish every time an NRA stooge gets on TV, they split screen him with those crime scene photos...

I had to tell you twice that I don't own a Bible because you don't pay attention to what you read and you have this insane mantra repeating in your head: "Bibles, guns, queers and darkies. Bibles, guns, queers and darkies. Bibles, guns...". So forgive me if I don't respond to this idiocy.

Whatever, I've made my point. Without fear, the GOP would have nothing.

Given your hatred of Catholics, I'd say you're the one with religious fears.

Yes, I do worry you guys will try to impose a theocracy on the rest of us.... like when Mike Pence threw that poor Indian woman in prison after she had a miscarriage.

Isn't that precisely what pro-gun control advocates are after? I don't know what Obama had to say on the matter but it's well known by everyone that candidates like O'Rourke want to take AR-15 type firearms. And you and I both know that if that happens, handguns are next; "Well, we've come this far, might as well take the next step." Once they get their foot in the door they won't stop. You know this as well as I do.

You talk like this is a bad thing. I can't think of a good reason why your average citizen should own a gun, must less one like the AR-15, which was designed for battlefields.