• 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!

SCOTUS Allos Sandy Hook Families' Case Against Remington Arms to Proceed

Rich2018 said:
There are no good arguments for owning a gun.
Feel free to offer such an arguments if you can...
Click to expand...
1. Because I want to defend myself from aggressive polar bears.
2. Because I want to defend myself from muggers.
3. Because I want to eliminate coyotes before they break into my chicken coop.
4. Because I want to protect my business from looters during a riot or in the aftermath of a hurricane.
5. Because I want to go deer hunting.
6. Because I want to compete in a biathlon.
7. Because I think the Framers were right to have our country protected by a militia, and I want to be a part of that militia.


Rich2018 said:
You'll see if falls into excuses: 1, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1 or 3.2
Click to expand...
What are these alleged excuses?


Rich2018 said:
There are NO good arguments for owning a gun.
Now, if you feel you have such an argument, go ahead and post it, otherwise don't waste bandwidth.
Click to expand...
The really great thing about living in a free country where people have civil liberties is, people don't have to justify owning a gun.

If a free American wants to have a gun, they get to have a gun. No justification required.
 
Lursa said:
You have no idea what you're talking about. I have it all saved on my home laptop, but Reader's Digest version, it's a joke if you think we'd be fighting a symmetrical war with the govt. And the firearms would only be for personal protection/defense...just like our soldiers overseas.

What, do you actually believe that our wars overseas are being fought by shooting people? :roll:
Click to expand...

What I have a very good idea about is your firepower versus that of the government. It is so tiny that you would be a gnat next to an elephant.
 
Lursa said:
Another proclamation...and no counter argument.
Click to expand...

Actually pointing out that you cannot properly read nor comprehend what is written to you is the perfect argument since you are NOT arguing against me but your own fantasies and distortions.
 
haymarket said:
What I have a very good idea about is your firepower versus that of the government. It is so tiny that you would be a gnat next to an elephant.
Click to expand...

LMAO and you claim I have no reading comprehension?

:lamo:lamo:lamo
 
haymarket said:
Actually pointing out that you cannot properly read nor comprehend what is written to you is the perfect argument since you are NOT arguing against me but your own fantasies and distortions.
Click to expand...

Your imagination is the only thing being posted here. Not facts, not argument.

I think you are imagining you have the upper hand...you do not.
 
Lursa said:
Your imagination is the only thing being posted here. Not facts, not argument.

I think you are imagining you have the upper hand...you do not.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you think you are talking about. You seem to have devolved into personal insult.

You have my permission to get in the last word. I hope that makes you feel better.
 
haymarket said:
I have no idea what you think you are talking about. You seem to have devolved into personal insult.

You have my permission to get in the last word. I hope that makes you feel better.
Click to expand...

Thanks!

Here we have you, devolving first.......
haymarket said:
your own fantasies and distortions.
Click to expand...
 
haymarket said:
What I have a very good idea about is your firepower versus that of the government. It is so tiny that you would be a gnat next to an elephant.
Click to expand...

You don't have an idea about jack****, if you think it's all about firepower.

If the people see the anti-gun politicians as the problem, they will vote them out and vote in politicians who will obey The Constitution and at the same offer immunity to the rebellious forces.
 
haymarket said:
Why is it necessary for you to separate the two? The gun does not have the capacity to know or care. It simply does.
Click to expand...
The crack of my ass, you just admitted we are right. YOU just separated it. Wonder what your anti gun buds think.
 
Toggle Almendro said:
And I responded to what you quoted. So did you quote an inaccurate article?
Click to expand...
Already asked and answered. Pay attention.

Toggle Almendro said:
So why did this article that you quoted verbatim say it then?
Click to expand...
Ask the article’s author.

Toggle Almendro said:
Indeed. There clearly is nothing for Remington to have to explain.
Click to expand...
Your opinion, only.

Toggle Almendro said:
Wow! I've seen appeal to authority fallacies before, but that's a doozy.

However, I doubt that you can cite any great legal minds saying that the law does not give gun manufacturers the right to ask for their legal bills to be paid when people hassle them with frivolous lawsuits.
Click to expand...
:lol: The doozy, is your belief that you’re more qualified than 8 state Supreme Court Justices and other actual legal experts who don’t consider the lawsuit “frivolous”.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Already asked and answered. Pay attention.


Ask the article’s author.


Your opinion, only.


:lol: The doozy, is your belief that you’re more qualified than 8 state Supreme Court Justices and other actual legal experts who don’t consider the lawsuit “frivolous”.
Click to expand...
it is frivolous because the marketing used by Bushmaster might have caused the mother to buy the gun but there is no evidence that the dead shooter was influenced by the marketing. He took weapons his mother had to kill-and whatever she had, he would have taken

tell us-in your mind-what Remington did that could even suggest liability without CT being at least as culpable
 
TurtleDude said:
it is frivolous because the marketing used by Bushmaster might have caused the mother to buy the gun but there is no evidence that the dead shooter was influenced by the marketing. He took weapons his mother had to kill-and whatever she had, he would have taken

tell us-in your mind-what Remington did that could even suggest liability without CT being at least as culpable
Click to expand...
No evidence that Adam Lanza was influenced by the advertisements? Are you sure of that? Can you provide references/links to support your assertion?
 
RaleBulgarian said:
No evidence that Adam Lanza was influenced by the advertisements? Are you sure of that? Can you provide references/links to support your assertion?
Click to expand...

More to the point, in order for it to be effective in court, or even introduced for him personally, the prosecution will have to prove affirmatively that he was.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
No evidence that Adam Lanza was influenced by the advertisements? Are you sure of that? Can you provide references/links to support your assertion?
Click to expand...

He's dead so we will never know but tell me-do you think he would have passed up say a Beretta AR 70 which has had almost no advertising in the USA and none since 1991, if his mom had owned it?

Tell me how a company can be liable for the CRIMINAL theft of a firearm
 
Lursa said:
More to the point, in order for it to be effective in court, or even introduced for him personally, the prosecution will have to prove affirmatively that he was.
Click to expand...
It’s a civil case, so there’s no prosecutor. Just plaintiffs and defendants. And are you sure the plaintiffs have to prove Lanza was effected by the advertising to even introduce the theory? Seems like that is an unreasonable bar to get over.
 
TurtleDude said:
He's dead so we will never know but tell me-do you think he would have passed up say a Beretta AR 70 which has had almost no advertising in the USA and none since 1991, if his mom had owned it?

Tell me how a company can be liable for the CRIMINAL theft of a firearm
Click to expand...
So, first you’re conceding that you do not know of any possible evidence that did, or did not, influence Lanza’ choice of firearm that day.

As you already know, the case doesn’t center on the theft of a firearm, it focuses on the marketing strategy for that firearm.
 
haymarket said:
We are NOT talking about a legal justification for owning a gun since the Constitution already provides that. We were talking about a real world reason or justification for owning one. And it is turning logic and reason upside down to pretend that a good reason for owning a gun is to stop other people who own guns from its use upon you. If there were no guns that reason would disappear. A gun does not magically make other guns good.
Click to expand...

Someone who is simple minded might think that. Banning drugs sure ended ODs didn't it? Beyond that, there are a myriad of reasons to own guns besides self defense. The real question is why would any sane person have an illogical fear of an inanimate object? Anti gunners are much like the Salem Witch trial group. Seeing an evil witch behind every tree. Just an illogical fear that intelligent people ignore.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
So, first you’re conceding that you do not know of any possible evidence that did, or did not, influence Lanza’ choice of firearm that day.

As you already know, the case doesn’t center on the theft of a firearm, it focuses on the marketing strategy for that firearm.
Click to expand...

if CT allowed it, why should Remington be liable? I have never seen an ad for a rifle that suggests they are ideal for murdering children. It appears you support this law suit and if you do, why?
 
haymarket said:
That is not now nor has ever been my position as it would violate the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.
Click to expand...

Then what was the purpose of your reference to "the first gun?"
 
TurtleDude said:
it is frivolous because the marketing used by Bushmaster might have caused the mother to buy the gun but there is no evidence that the dead shooter was influenced by the marketing. He took weapons his mother had to kill-and whatever she had, he would have taken

tell us-in your mind-what Remington did that could even suggest liability without CT being at least as culpable
Click to expand...

It is frivolous anyway. You are not required to meet any standards with advertising that don't portray your product as being able to do something that it can't and that is subjective. Look at all the car commercials with cars speeding all over the place and driving in unsafe manners. Or beer commercials that make it look like drinking beer will put you on a beach full of hot chicks. How about the insurance commercial where the guy is half man and half bike? Nike commercials with guys doing impossible physical feats. Advertising is to get your attention, always has been always will be.
 
BahamaBob said:
It is frivolous anyway. You are not required to meet any standards with advertising that don't portray your product as being able to do something that it can't and that is subjective. Look at all the car commercials with cars speeding all over the place and driving in unsafe manners. Or beer commercials that make it look like drinking beer will put you on a beach full of hot chicks. How about the insurance commercial where the guy is half man and half bike? Nike commercials with guys doing impossible physical feats. Advertising is to get your attention, always has been always will be.
Click to expand...

many police departments use Bushmaster carbines BTW
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom