• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturer Remington, lower court ruling overturned

Grokmaster said:
Because manufacturer's should be liable for criminal misuse of their product(s).

Drunk driving is car manufacturer's fault; knife killings are kitchenware manufacturer's fault...etc.

Complete IDIOCY. Will not stand....
Click to expand...
Agree. It is as illogical to hold a gun maker responsible for the misuse of their product as it would be to sue a car manufacturer because a drunk driver killed someone with a car they produced.
 
Excon said:
Besides the issue already being discussed in another thread, it is not going to survive any finale challenge.
Click to expand...

Where, please? And why do you think that? This isn't a 2nd Amendment issue, really. It's about product safety and marketing.
 
NotreDame said:
Firearms are not parallel to cigarettes. There was no safe use of cigarettes but there are safe uses for firearms. The misuse of firearms is the problem but not the firearm itself. Cigarettes are themselves the problem as they were loaded with harmful chemicals and the harm was immediately transferred upon use and known to be transferred upon use. Firearms are different as they can be used in such a manner as to not result in harm by their use.
Click to expand...

There is a YUGE gap in your logic, which is directly germane to the litigation. To clarify, the complaint (as I understand it) was to the marketing of the product, which resulted in its deadly use. Let me provide a direct parallel that might clarify. Suppose Oldsmobile were to market a vehicle with spikes on the front, and on the hubcaps, and post ads with it driving down sidewalks impaling people, and creating carnage. Would that be appropriate? Might they be liable for encouraging the misuse of their otherwise lawful product? How about the manufacturer of a medication - oh, I don't know, an opioid - who encouraged users to overuse it and caused deaths consistent with their encouragement, might this be litigated?

I think it is important when discussing a topic such as this to start with the facts and issues presented rather than jumping to ideological conclusions regardless of the circumstances.
 
NWRatCon said:
Where, please? And why do you think that? This isn't a 2nd Amendment issue, really. It's about product safety and marketing.
Click to expand...
What do you mean where? This is a violation of the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. It is not going to survive challenge.
 
ajn678 said:
This is entirely unconstitutional, but I am sure you don't care.
Click to expand...

On what basis? I know, requiring analysis, but give it a shot.
 
Excon said:
What do you mean where? This is a violation of the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. It is not going to survive challenge.
Click to expand...

It has so far.... citations, please? There are fundamental commerce issues involved in that Act, BTW. IF you want to make a claim about it, don't you think you should provide some context?
 
NWRatCon said:
It has so far.... citations, please? There are fundamental commerce issues involved in that Act, BTW. IF you want to make a claim about it, don't you think you should provide some context?
Click to expand...
Do yo really not understand I am speaking to the final arbiter of the challenge? No one is going to be satisfied until the question is answered by the SCt.

Fundamental commerce issues?
No there really isn't.
That is what is claimed. It is not going to fly.
 
Excon said:
Do yo really not understand I am speaking to the final arbiter of the challenge? No one is going to be satisfied until the question is answered by the SCt.

Fundamental commerce issues?
No there really isn't.
That is what is claimed. It is not going to fly.
Click to expand...

In other words, you don't know what the answer is? SO, the source of your surety is....?
 
ataraxia said:
There are absolutely no safe uses for an AR15 with high capacity magazine clips and bumpstocks. .
Click to expand...

Ok----going to a shooting range....shooting of an AR 15 with high capacity magazines. Safe? ( it's a rhetorical-it is)

Come back when you have a better argument.
 
ataraxia said:
Studies by the centers for Disease Control (CDC) were showing that guns were a serious public health hazard, no different than smoking. That’s why the gun lobby pushed congress to ban further research there, and successfully pushed for gag orders on physicians from even being able to bring up the findings with their patients.

Gun Violence as a Public Health Issue – Science-Based Medicine

Bans on research and gag orders in Physicians, because we are a free country, right?
Click to expand...


*That’s why the gun lobby pushed congress to ban further research there,*

There was no CDC ban on research, your on link said so;

*and although the legislation does not ban gun-related research outright,*
 
NWRatCon said:
In other words, you don't know what the answer is? SO, the source of your surety is....?
Click to expand...

iLOL The answer was already given. It is not going to stand challenge.
 
Oh, let me help...Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act:
(5) QUALIFIED CIVIL LIABILITY ACTION-

(A) IN GENERAL- The term `qualified civil liability action' ...Shall not include--

(i) (iii) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought, including--(II) any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or conspired with any other person to sell or otherwise dispose of a qualified product, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that the actual buyer of the qualified product was prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm or ammunition under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code.
Click to expand...
(Emphases added).

There are, as I have noted, some Constitutional issues with regard to the soundness of the law itself, which have not, to my knowledge, been litigated. I find it ironic that its greatest judicial champions are the very people who complain about "State's Rights" in other contexts. Just an aside.
 
ataraxia said:
There are absolutely no safe uses for an AR15 with high capacity magazine clips and bumpstocks. The public needs thise as much as they need live nuclear ordnances in their garage.
Click to expand...

then there are no safe uses of any guns. that is the precedent you are setting.
 
NotreDame said:
You can dispense with the tangent of bump stocks and high capacity clips.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

WTH? Since when did they become a tangent all of a sudden? They have been the very focus of gun debates for a long time. You are not being disingenuous now, are you?
 
Last edited:
Hypothetical said:
then there are no safe uses of any guns. that is the precedent you are setting.
Click to expand...

That’s like saying any speed limit on a road is a precedent to taking away everybody’s drivers licenses. The old “slippery slope” argument of “if they take away your right to artillery with live rounds today, it’s a precedent to take away your nail clippers tomorrow”. What a toxic mindset. But it sure has been a highly effective marketing campaign for the gun manufacturers. Heck they are making millions off paranoid poor saps buying ridiculously expensive military grade hardware they don’t need, to their own peril.

And they say there are no parallels to the tobacco industry. This is even better than the Joe Camel campaign.
 
Last edited:
NWRatCon said:
Where, please? And why do you think that? This isn't a 2nd Amendment issue, really. It's about product safety and marketing.
Click to expand...

The thread is in the gun control sub forum.
It most likely will not survive a challenge because of the "Shield Law" passed back in the early 2000's (think it was 04 or 05) that protects gun manufacturers from theae types of lawsuits.
The AR is a safe gun platform when used correctly. Nothing about the design or in the manufacturing process makes the weapon unsafe. Unless the prosecution can come up with an advertising campaign that mentioned using it as an offensive weapon to kill people I don't see how there is a marketing issue. All the ads I've ever seen promote its use for hunting, target practice, and self defense in a responsible legal way.

I can understand the families frustration because the shooter killed himself leaving families with no one to hold responsible or answer for their children's murderers. However the AR is no more to blame for the shooters actions than the car he used to drive to the school is.
 
ataraxia said:
WTH? Since when did they become a tangent all of a sudden? They have been the very focus of gun debates for a long time. You are not being disingenuous now, are you?
Click to expand...

High capacity clips may have but the bumpstock was realitivly unknown out side of gun enthusiasts until the Vegas shooting
 
NWRatCon said:
There is a YUGE gap in your logic, which is directly germane to the litigation. To clarify, the complaint (as I understand it) was to the marketing of the product, which resulted in its deadly use. Let me provide a direct parallel that might clarify. Suppose Oldsmobile were to market a vehicle with spikes on the front, and on the hubcaps, and post ads with it driving down sidewalks impaling people, and creating carnage. Would that be appropriate? Might they be liable for encouraging the misuse of their otherwise lawful product? How about the manufacturer of a medication - oh, I don't know, an opioid - who encouraged users to overuse it and caused deaths consistent with their encouragement, might this be litigated?

I think it is important when discussing a topic such as this to start with the facts and issues presented rather than jumping to ideological conclusions regardless of the circumstances.
Click to expand...

There’s a YUGE gap in your logic, my remark wasn’t addressing the complaint but another poster’s comparison of AR-15 to smokes.

Try to follow along.

FYI-I’ve read the decision, I’m familiar with the legal claims made as they were represented and discussed in the opinion but I’ve ventured no opinion or position about the complaint or it’s claims.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
ataraxia said:
WTH? Since when did they become a tangent all of a sudden? They have been the very focus of gun debates for a long time. You are not being disingenuous now, are you?
Click to expand...

Follow along dude! I’m was addressing and continue to address your stupid comparison of guns to cigarettes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Chillfolks said:
High capacity clips may have but the bumpstock was realitivly unknown out side of gun enthusiasts until the Vegas shooting
Click to expand...

...when they were became fiercely defended against any regulation. I remember the defense at the time, when asked what possible legitimate use these things had, or what need they fulfilled, was: “the second amendment says nothing about need.”

But now you want to talk about legitimate needs and uses for why AR15s are OK but nuclear ordnances are not? Where does it say anything about “need” in the 2A in order to have access to any kind of arms?

You guys have to get your arguments a little more coherent and consistent. You’re all over the place in your frantic effort to sound like you have some legitimate and consistent argument.
 
NotreDame said:
There’s a YUGE gap in your logic, my remark wasn’t addressing the complaint but another poster’s comparison of AR-15 to smokes.

Try to follow along.

FYI-I’ve read the decision, I’m familiar with the legal claims made as they were represented and discussed in the opinion but I’ve ventured no opinion or position about the complaint or it’s claims.
Click to expand...
Chill, dude. My point is, there is an exception in the LAW that may allow the suit. Not sure if that distinction is of interest to you. I like discussing the finer points, since it tends to avoid the knee jerk responses. I'm trying to keep up with a number of disparate threads (home with a cold), so I may have missed a distinction in your argument (although, frankly, I still don't see it).
 
Last edited:
ataraxia said:
...when they were became fiercely defended against any regulation. I remember the defense at the time, when asked what possible legitimate use these things had, or what need they fulfilled, was: “the second amendment says nothing about need.”

But now you want to talk about legitimate needs and uses for why AR15s are OK but nuclear ordnances are not? Where does it say anything about
“need” in the 2A in order to have access to any kind of arms?

You guys have to get your arguments a little more coherent and consistent. You’re all over the place in your frantic effort to sound like you have some legitimate and consistent argument.
Click to expand...

Yes semi automatic rifles are ok to own Nuclear weapons are not. If you're too stupid to understand that then educate your ignorant ass.
Who is "you guys"? I only speak for myself. Agian if you are too stupid to understand that educate your ignorant ass.
 
NWRatCon said:
Chill, dude. My point is, there is an exception in the LAW that may allow the suit. Not sure if that distinction is of interest to you. I like discussing the finer points, since it tends to avoid the knee jerk responses. I'm trying to keep up with a number of disparate threads (home with a cold), so I may have missed a distinction in your argument (although, frankly, I still don't see it).
Click to expand...

Chill? I’m already chill.

I’ve never ventured an opinion or commented upon the decision of lawsuit.

If you follow my replies back to their inception, including the one post you addressed, you’d realize I was not commenting upon the decision or lawsuit. You’d also discover that I was addressing another poster’s ridiculous comparison of guns to cigarettes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
ataraxia said:
The gun manyfacturers’ continued aggressive marketing of a known public health hazard is not unlike the tobacco industry’s continued shameless marketing of smoking after studies had proven the tobacco/cancer link. They need to be held liable for pushing a known dangerous product on the public the same as the tobacco industry.

Now if the public wants to keep buying these products, it should still be their prerogative, just like smoking. It should not be banned, as that invariably creates backlash out of spite alone. Let them keep buying it. A fool and his money must part. But the manufacturers should be held liable for false advertising and propagating myths with their claims of “guns make us safer” and the image of the real American and real man needing a huge gun to keep his home and country safe. This is no different than the Joe Camel advertising campaign by the tobacco industry to kids and adolescents that smoking makes you cool.
Click to expand...

why did the state of CT allow the sales of these and similar weapons for almost 50 years then? The plaintiffs and their attorneys need to be hit with massive sanctions for filing a frivolous law suit. It also violates the federal prohibition on these sorts of harassing suits. The maker of the firearm is not located in CT.
 
Crovax said:
Wait are you suggesting the guns themselves are causing people to commit murder?
Click to expand...

because gun owners tend to oppose the creeping crud of collectivism that almost all the supporters of this idiotic decision, endorse
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom