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

[Bob Blaylock]

Sounds to me like you became an angry white man (if you were not already). The only difference in your case is that your broadbrush [sic] animosity is not against an ethnic minority. You now hate all rich people because a couple of them did you wrong.

It's worth noting, of course, that we only ever hear small, random bits of JoeB131's side of the story, about how employers, rich people, white people, Mormons, Catholics, other religious people, conservatives, etc., screwed him over. I have absolutely know doubt that if we knew the real story behind his whining, it'd be something very, very different than what he's making it out to be.

What we hear from JoeB131 is very similar to what I have heard from a few other people; people that I've had the misfortune to have to work with. I've come to pretty much know that when I hear such things from someone I'm going to be working with, that I'm going to end up doing all the work, and on top of that, fixing problems created by him as well. Of course, such people don't usually last long on the job, and I have no doubt they'll be telling their coworkers at the next job all the same crap about their previous employer—the same employer that I never had any trouble with—that they were telling me about the ones that had before they “worked” with me.

JoeB131's tales of woe tell to me a story of someone who manages to find all sorts of ways to crew up his own life, and then to blame others for the results rather than taking any responsibility for his own behavior.

He's left with a deep, deep hatred, a deep bigotry, toward several large categories of people, based on his perception of how a few members of these categories are responsible for the mess that he's made of his own life.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Sounds to me like you became an angry white man (if you were not already). The only difference in your case is that your broadbrush [sic] animosity is not against an ethnic minority. You now hate all rich people because a couple of them did you wrong.

It's worth noting, of course, that we only ever hear small, random bits of JoeB131's side of the story, about how employers, rich people, white people, Mormons, Catholics, other religious people, conservatives, etc., screwed him over. I have absolutely know doubt that if we knew the real story behind his whining, it'd be something very, very different than what he's making it out to be.

What we hear from JoeB131 is very similar to what I have heard from a few other people; people that I've had the misfortune to have to work with. I've come to pretty much know that when I hear such things from someone I'm going to be working with, that I'm going to end up doing all the work, and on top of that, fixing problems created by him as well. Of course, such people don't usually last long on the job, and I have no doubt they'll be telling their coworkers at the next job all the same crap about their previous employer—the same employer that I never had any trouble with—that they were telling me about the ones that had before they “worked” with me.

JoeB131's tales of woe tell to me a story of someone who manages to find all sorts of ways to crew up his own life, and then to blame others for the results rather than taking any responsibility for his own behavior.

He's left with a deep, deep hatred, a deep bigotry, toward several large categories of people, based on his perception of how a few members of these categories are responsible for the mess that he's made of his own life.

I know one thing for sure after all my interactions with him: He has a deep and abiding contempt for white people, white males, conservatives, rich people, Christians and Catholics or any of various combinations thereof.

 

[JoeB131]

I stock up for the next gun and ammo run I have way more than that. Certain firearms have specific purposes. However that's irrelevant you negated to give your quialfying authority.

Just because she wasn't as nutty as you are... doesn't mean she wasn't nuts.

This is your argument, really? "Not as crazy as you are".

The manufacturers sell their vehicles to dealerships, not to drivers. Ergo, they are not obligated to sell to licensed and insured drivers, the dealerships are.

Authroized Dealerships... you are making my point.

Sounds to me like you became an angry white man (if you were not already). The only difference in your case is that your broadbrush animosity is not against an ethnic minority. You now hate all rich people because a couple of them did you wrong.

No, I hate them because they did all of wrong. This country was pretty awesome for white working folks in the 1960's. Then the rich woke up, realized that they weren't happy having half the money, they wanted ALL the money.

And they got stupid people like you clinging to your guns and your bibles, hating the darkies and queers.

Maybe, maybe not. The fact remains that at this point in time, it is probably beyond recovery. Therefore, I don't feel we should be throwing money at people who come here illegally.

Sure it is. Stop giving tax giveaways to the rich. Restore the Estate Tax. Stop wasting money on bloated military programs. Problem solved.

But they have you all upset about the darkies, so you go with that.

When you and others say "fair share" in regards to corporations and the rich, what you really mean is you want them to pay proportionately more than everyone else by simple virtue of their being rich. Fair share means fair share, which in turn means that if everyone else is paying, say, ten percent, corporations and the rich should not be made to pay more than that.

Nope, they should pay confiscatory taxes... Then we should harvest them for transplant organs for working class folks. That would be "Fair" in my mind, but some would consider that Harsh, so higher taxes it is.

You don't get out of debt by giving money to people to yank children from their wombs before they're born either.

Quite the contrary, publicly funded abortions would be a massive savings... a $300.00 abortion instead of a lifetime of paying for an underachiever?

It's a bargain!

Well that was a stupid goddamn thing to say considering all the angry rhetoric flying around between conservatives and liberals on just about everything, including the matter of gun control which this discussion is about.

Gun control has always been about race. It was about race when a "proper gentleman" was expected to be armed to keep his slaves under control, and it is now when the NRA tells dumb white people they need them some guns to fight the Darkies.

YOu worry so much about some darkie swiping your big screen you didn't notice the rich stole your middle class. Classic Misdirection.

Is this another union tangent?

No, it describes how the rich put one over on you. If they ran on "We are going to break up your union, remove all your rights at work, making your job "At Will" employment, get rid of all the workplace safety rules,", even the dumbest, most inbred angry white trash would say, "Hey.... wait a minute".

but you tell him some darkie is coming here to take a job he wouldn't take even in the worst recession, and the government is giving them something, they totally vote for that.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I stock up for the next gun and ammo run I have way more than that. Certain firearms have specific purposes. However that's irrelevant you negated to give your quialfying authority.

Just because she wasn't as nutty as you are... doesn't mean she wasn't nuts.

This is your argument, really? "Not as crazy as you are".

The manufacturers sell their vehicles to dealerships, not to drivers. Ergo, they are not obligated to sell to licensed and insured drivers, the dealerships are.

Authroized Dealerships... you are making my point.

Sounds to me like you became an angry white man (if you were not already). The only difference in your case is that your broadbrush animosity is not against an ethnic minority. You now hate all rich people because a couple of them did you wrong.

No, I hate them because they did all of wrong. This country was pretty awesome for white working folks in the 1960's. Then the rich woke up, realized that they weren't happy having half the money, they wanted ALL the money.

And they got stupid people like you clinging to your guns and your bibles, hating the darkies and queers.

Maybe, maybe not. The fact remains that at this point in time, it is probably beyond recovery. Therefore, I don't feel we should be throwing money at people who come here illegally.

Sure it is. Stop giving tax giveaways to the rich. Restore the Estate Tax. Stop wasting money on bloated military programs. Problem solved.

But they have you all upset about the darkies, so you go with that.

When you and others say "fair share" in regards to corporations and the rich, what you really mean is you want them to pay proportionately more than everyone else by simple virtue of their being rich. Fair share means fair share, which in turn means that if everyone else is paying, say, ten percent, corporations and the rich should not be made to pay more than that.

Nope, they should pay confiscatory taxes... Then we should harvest them for transplant organs for working class folks. That would be "Fair" in my mind, but some would consider that Harsh, so higher taxes it is.

You don't get out of debt by giving money to people to yank children from their wombs before they're born either.

Quite the contrary, publicly funded abortions would be a massive savings... a $300.00 abortion instead of a lifetime of paying for an underachiever?

It's a bargain!

Well that was a stupid goddamn thing to say considering all the angry rhetoric flying around between conservatives and liberals on just about everything, including the matter of gun control which this discussion is about.

Gun control has always been about race. It was about race when a "proper gentleman" was expected to be armed to keep his slaves under control, and it is now when the NRA tells dumb white people they need them some guns to fight the Darkies.

YOu worry so much about some darkie swiping your big screen you didn't notice the rich stole your middle class. Classic Misdirection.

View attachment 290093

Is this another union tangent?

No, it describes how the rich put one over on you. If they ran on "We are going to break up your union, remove all your rights at work, making your job "At Will" employment, get rid of all the workplace safety rules,", even the dumbest, most inbred angry white trash would say, "Hey.... wait a minute".

but you tell him some darkie is coming here to take a job he wouldn't take even in the worst recession, and the government is giving them something, they totally vote for that.

However, that's irrelevant you negated to give your qualifying authority.

 

[JoeB131]

It's worth noting, of course, that we only ever hear small, random bits of JoeB131's side of the story, about how employers, rich people, white people, Mormons, Catholics, other religious people, conservatives, etc., screwed him over. I have absolutely know doubt that if we knew the real story behind his whining, it'd be something very, very different than what he's making it out to be.

No, actually, it's just called living... something you probably aren't allowed to do outside of your cult.

JoeB131's tales of woe tell to me a story of someone who manages to find all sorts of ways to crew up his own life, and then to blame others for the results rather than taking any responsibility for his own behavior.

Except that I'm pretty well off, own a lot of property, and make a pretty good living... but clearly, the fact that I don't worship greed means there's something wrong with me.

He's left with a deep, deep hatred, a deep bigotry, toward several large categories of people, based on his perception of how a few members of these categories are responsible for the mess that he's made of his own life.

Nope, you miss the point. I divide the oppossition in this country into two groups.

The Rich- who are fucking it up for the rest of us.
The Rubes- who go along with it because the Rich are very good at keeping dumb people like you angry about it.

Now- The Rich ALWAYS get what they want. They get their tax breaks, they get their union busting, they get their de-regulation and they get their huge taxpayer funded bailouts when they fuck it up and crash the economy.

The Rubes, on the other hand, never get what they want. Abortion is still legal. Gay Marriage is still legal. They haven't forced religion and prayer back into the schools... Those things are still legal because we have to keep dumb people like you angry about something.

So enjoy being a Rube. They are counting on it.

I know one thing for sure after all my interactions with him: He has a deep and abiding contempt for white people, white males, conservatives, rich people, Christians and Catholics or any of various combinations thereof.

Except I'm white and most of my relatives are still practicing Catholics...

One more time, read the above. If the Rich didn't have the Rube issues to keep you clinging to your guns and your bibles, the conservative movement would die.

Mark my words, once Remington and other gun manufacturers start paying for the carnage they are inflicting on the world, they are going to be a lot less keen about your "Second Amendment Rights"

 

[Polishprince]

Mark my words, once Remington and other gun manufacturers start paying for the carnage they are inflicting on the world, they are going to be a lot less keen about your "Second Amendment Rights"

They will be out of business, really. Small underground manufacturers will be providing for the self defense needs of Americans. Police departments will have to pay out of their noses for their own armaments, as the prices will have to be enough to cover the possible verdicts. Police officers have been known to improperly shoot people like that police officer in Chicago and the maker of his weapon would have to have enough money to pay verdicts to the family and it would have to be factored into the price.

 

[JoeB131]

They will be out of business, really. Small underground manufacturers will be providing for the self defense needs of Americans. Police departments will have to pay out of their noses for their own armaments, as the prices will have to be enough to cover the possible verdicts. Police officers have been known to improperly shoot people like that police officer in Chicago and the maker of his weapon would have to have enough money to pay verdicts to the family and it would have to be factored into the price.

You are stretching....

More likely.. the gun industry will stop marketing to the Nancy Lanzas of the world and support strict gun control.

 

[Polishprince]

They will be out of business, really. Small underground manufacturers will be providing for the self defense needs of Americans. Police departments will have to pay out of their noses for their own armaments, as the prices will have to be enough to cover the possible verdicts. Police officers have been known to improperly shoot people like that police officer in Chicago and the maker of his weapon would have to have enough money to pay verdicts to the family and it would have to be factored into the price.

You are stretching....

More likely.. the gun industry will stop marketing to the Nancy Lanzas of the world and support strict gun control.

Remington didn't sell any weapons to Nancy Lanza- who bought them from a retailer.

And she wasn't a bad actor at all , it isn't her fault that the weapons were stolen.

"Strict gun control" would not have made a difference. And the financial precedent of a legal case would indicate a new cost that would have to be factored into new purchases. A $700 weapon would have to increase in price to $7000 or more.

 

[JoeB131]

Remington didn't sell any weapons to Nancy Lanza- who bought them from a retailer.

And she wasn't a bad actor at all , it isn't her fault that the weapons were stolen.

She raised Adam. She taught him that Guns solve problems. She took him to the range and taught him how to use them.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I stock up for the next gun and ammo run I have way more than that. Certain firearms have specific purposes. However that's irrelevant you negated to give your quialfying authority.

Just because she wasn't as nutty as you are... doesn't mean she wasn't nuts.

This is your argument, really? "Not as crazy as you are".

The manufacturers sell their vehicles to dealerships, not to drivers. Ergo, they are not obligated to sell to licensed and insured drivers, the dealerships are.

Authroized Dealerships... you are making my point.

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

Sounds to me like you became an angry white man (if you were not already). The only difference in your case is that your broadbrush animosity is not against an ethnic minority. You now hate all rich people because a couple of them did you wrong.

No, I hate them because they did all of wrong. This country was pretty awesome for white working folks in the 1960's. Then the rich woke up, realized that they weren't happy having half the money, they wanted ALL the money.

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

And they got stupid people like you clinging to your guns and your bibles, hating the darkies and queers.

Again, I don't own a Bible and I told you this already. I don't know how you expect to conduct an open and productive debate if you either can't remember or simply ignore the things I say. You have your "Cling to your Bible and hate darkies and queers" narrative and you're going to stick to that no matter what I say. It might throw a monkey wrench into your argument and you're either too full of hate, too lazy or just too fucking stupid to concoct a new narrative to adjust.

I've never had any problem with gays or "darkies". In fact, I'm in favor of gay marriage and gay couples adopting and I've lived and worked in two Latin American countries. I made many friends there and found them to be open and caring and fun-loving. Americans have a lot to learn from Hispanic cultures on how to just be happy and enjoy life. I think you could learn a thing or two from them yourself so you won't just view them as hapless victim props in your morality play.

That prejudice of yours is making you look stupid.

Maybe, maybe not. The fact remains that at this point in time, it is probably beyond recovery. Therefore, I don't feel we should be throwing money at people who come here illegally.

Sure it is. Stop giving tax giveaways to the rich. Restore the Estate Tax. Stop wasting money on bloated military programs. Problem solved.

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".

But they have you all upset about the darkies, so you go with that.

You're the who keeps bringing up "darkies", not me.

When you and others say "fair share" in regards to corporations and the rich, what you really mean is you want them to pay proportionately more than everyone else by simple virtue of their being rich. Fair share means fair share, which in turn means that if everyone else is paying, say, ten percent, corporations and the rich should not be made to pay more than that.

Nope, they should pay confiscatory taxes... Then we should harvest them for transplant organs for working class folks. That would be "Fair" in my mind, but some would consider that Harsh, so higher taxes it is.

In other words, proportionately more.

You don't get out of debt by giving money to people to yank children from their wombs before they're born either.

Quite the contrary, publicly funded abortions would be a massive savings... a $300.00 abortion instead of a lifetime of paying for an underachiever?

It's a bargain!

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.

Well that was a stupid goddamn thing to say considering all the angry rhetoric flying around between conservatives and liberals on just about everything, including the matter of gun control which this discussion is about.

Gun control has always been about race. It was about race when a "proper gentleman" was expected to be armed to keep his slaves under control, and it is now when the NRA tells dumb white people they need them some guns to fight the Darkies.

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.

YOu worry so much about some darkie swiping your big screen you didn't notice the rich stole your middle class. Classic Misdirection.

You brought it up, not me.

Is this another union tangent?

No, it describes how the rich put one over on you. If they ran on "We are going to break up your union, remove all your rights at work, making your job "At Will" employment, get rid of all the workplace safety rules,", even the dumbest, most inbred angry white trash would say, "Hey.... wait a minute".

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.

but you tell him some darkie is coming here to take a job he wouldn't take even in the worst recession, and the government is giving them something, they totally vote for that.

What is this fixation you have with "darkies"?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I know one thing for sure after all my interactions with him: He has a deep and abiding contempt for white people, white males, conservatives, rich people, Christians and Catholics or any of various combinations thereof.

Except I'm white and most of my relatives are still practicing Catholics...

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?

One more time, read the above. If the Rich didn't have the Rube issues to keep you clinging to your guns and your bibles, the conservative movement would die.

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.

Mark my words, once Remington and other gun manufacturers start paying for the carnage they are inflicting on the world, they are going to be a lot less keen about your "Second Amendment Rights"

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

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

 

[2aguy]

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.

What do you mean absent references to "Combat, militarism or maniness?" They shouldn't have been sued over this, and the courts should have sent them packing....this is nothing more than LAWFARE against a gun maker in the hope of opening up fake lawsuits to sue them out of existence.....

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

What do you mean absent references to "Combat, militarism or maniness?" They shouldn't have been sued over this, and the courts should have sent them packing....this is nothing more than LAWFARE against a gun maker in the hope of opening up fake lawsuits to sue them out of existence.....

There are only three possible reasons to sue a manufacturer.....

design flaw, but guns work as designed...


production flaw, ....put together wrong, or broken....also not the case


or marketing flaw...a claim that it does something that it doesn't do.


None apply.....one more black mark against the vaunted agency called the Supreme Court.



As I have said before about the mutterings of this august body, the judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion.


There is no valid lawsuit against the gun manufacturers.

 

[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.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

"...marketed a product that was dangerous ..."

Even a product such as one you are in dire need of, an encyclopedia,could be dangerous if it fell on you, you dunce.

There are only three possible reasons to sue a manufacturer.....

design flaw, but guns work as designed...


production flaw, ....put together wrong, or broken....also not the case


or marketing flaw...a claim that it does something that it doesn't do.


None apply.....one more black mark against the vaunted agency called the Supreme Court.

 

[flack]

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.

BS!

 

[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.

Of course there is a legitimate use for this kind of product. Suppose someone is attacked by a terrorist cell or a criminal street gang. Rapid fire becomes very essential.

If you look at the WH under Obama- his body guards had a full range weaponry so they would be ready for threats. It was easy for Obama to tell other "you don't need proper self defense", because he had it and he could give a shit less about you.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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.

 

[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.