Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Sandy Hook families still at it.Feel sorry for them as they just wont let it go. Must be being prodded by lawyers
1 posted on 11/14/2017 4:57:26 AM PST by CGASMIA68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last
To: CGASMIA68

Aren’t certain food provisions also designed for “military use”?

There are even “military grade” computer chips that endure high and low temperatures better.

This is an odd standard for a lawsuit.


2 posted on 11/14/2017 4:59:02 AM PST by a fool in paradise (Did Barack Obama denounce Communism and dictatorships when he visited Cuba as a puppet of the State?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: CGASMIA68

How many times have they filed this lawsuit now?


4 posted on 11/14/2017 5:04:21 AM PST by Trump20162020
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: CGASMIA68

This should be summarily dismissed due to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Once it has been demonstrated that Remington lawfully sold the firearm, the case is moot.


6 posted on 11/14/2017 5:07:24 AM PST by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: CGASMIA68

Funny stuff. AR-15s were not designed for “military use”, they were designed for “civilian use” when they changed the design of M-16s to fire only in a semi-automatic mode and thus created the AR-15.


7 posted on 11/14/2017 5:09:10 AM PST by The Toad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: CGASMIA68

Military firearms are the exact firearms protected by the Second Amendment.


8 posted on 11/14/2017 5:09:48 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (<img src="http://i.imgur.com/WukZwJP.gif" width=800><p><h1>NYC 9-11 Memorial 09/11/2016</h1>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: CGASMIA68
"arguing it marketed the AR-15 to the public even though it knew the weapon was designed for military use."

Actually the AR-15 was not designed for military use, it's selective fire cousin was. But, even if it was, so what? The semi-auto pistol was designed for military use. Bolt action rifles were designed for military use. Lots of items we use all the time were originally designed for military use.

9 posted on 11/14/2017 5:10:44 AM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: CGASMIA68


11 posted on 11/14/2017 5:13:09 AM PST by Vlad The Inhaler (United We Stand - Divided We Fall. Remember: Diversity is the opposite of unity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: CGASMIA68
First question: (subpoena a Drill Sgt or military rifle instructor like a CO or BN CO) "How many AR 15s are in your company's arms room? What? Zero? What about at the BN level? Brigade? Division?! Are you telling me that you don't know of ANY AR15s in inventory?! Next witness!"

Judge: Case dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff pays court cost and lawyer fees to Remington.

13 posted on 11/14/2017 5:14:36 AM PST by DCBryan1 (No realli, moose bytes can be quite nasti!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: CGASMIA68
This case is an eventual sure loser. When it finally gets to the US SCOTUS, they will rightfully conclude that the 2nd Amendment makes no differentiation between military and civilian firearms. In fact, the 2A makes it clear that citizens should be armed with weapons that are adequate for them to serve in militias.

This lawsuit is a politically-motivated attack on a gun maker, Remington, to hurt them financially. We need to counter such measures by purchasing Remington firearms. The 870 shotgun and 700 rifle are industry standards. Their Model 1911 R1 is a fine .45 and they seem to have worked the kinks out of the R51 9mm which, with it's rounded edges and sleek profile, would make a good carry pistol.

16 posted on 11/14/2017 5:26:18 AM PST by Dr. Thorne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: CGASMIA68

You never let go the murder of a child, get over yourself.


17 posted on 11/14/2017 5:28:09 AM PST by yldstrk (My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: CGASMIA68

They sued cigarette companies for marketing to children so now they want to try it with guns. Its against the law to sell cigs to kids, not against the law to sell military style weapons to adults.


18 posted on 11/14/2017 5:32:42 AM PST by Brooklyn Attitude (The first step in ending the war on white people is to recognize it exists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: CGASMIA68
...seeking to hold Remington Outdoor Co. liable, arguing it marketed the AR-15 to the public even though it knew the weapon was designed for military use...

I actually feel sorry for those families. They have gotten roped in and taken by a bunch of shyster lawyers (probably redundant) who are taking advantage of them and their suffering. This case has virtually no chance of a favorable outcome for them. It is uphill all the way.

How exactly do they intend to connect the dots?

One, they'll have to prove a link between marketing and liability. Shaky at best. Whatever specific ways they try to do this will be easily countered by any competent lawyer.

Two, prove negligence in the marketing as being targeted at psychotic killers. Non-existent and virtually impossible.

Three "designed" for military use - so many problems with that.

Three-A, they can quite easily show that it incorporated many design features specifically for the civilian market. So "based-on" a military design is about the best they can do. It's probably a trap though, Remington can show specific civilian features (eg. semi-auto vs full-auto) that specifically reduce the effectiveness of murdering psychotics.

Three-B designed for military use - so what? Many of the same features (eg. corrosion resistance) are desirable in civilian firearms.

Three-C, again, so-what? Designed to be effective for the military, civilians protecting themselves and families want/deserve that same level of protection. (eg. no distinction in protection in other areas: smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, air bags, etc. etc.)

Even if they find a judge and/or jury willing to go along with this charade... Remington has far deeper pockets - they'll just appeal on up until they find a saner court. Meanwhile the shysters will have bled these families dry.

19 posted on 11/14/2017 5:36:47 AM PST by ThunderSleeps (Doing my part to help make America great again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: CGASMIA68

I’m so sick of all these purported “gun victims”. The same gun was used by the attacker and the defender in the Texas Church Massacre. The gun is irrelevant. The intentions of the person mean everything.


21 posted on 11/14/2017 5:38:09 AM PST by backwoods-engineer (Trump won; we got Gorsuch and a bit of MAGA. Likely have a civil war before we get more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: CGASMIA68

If the dead adults at Sandy Hook could have a do-over, I’d be they would have liked to face Adam Lanza with a gun of their own.


22 posted on 11/14/2017 5:38:23 AM PST by umgud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: CGASMIA68
In 2011 in Norway, Anders Behring Breivik killed 77, including 69 who he shot using a Ruger Ranch Rifle.

In November 2015 in Paris, terrorists killed 130 using fully automatic M70s and AK-47s. Doubt anyone can buy these in any French gun store.

Not sure what banning "ugly" rifles is supposed to do do. (Except for incrementalism -- "Okay, that didn't work. What can we ban next?")

27 posted on 11/14/2017 6:00:23 AM PST by Sooth2222 ("Gun buybacks are one of the most ineffectual public policies that have ever been invented")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: CGASMIA68

If it even mattered, which it doesn’t, the only question that needs to be asked is “what branch of the U.S. military uses the AR-15?”


32 posted on 11/14/2017 7:45:18 AM PST by zeugma (I always wear my lucky red shirt on away missions!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: CGASMIA68; mylife; Joe Brower; MaxMax; Randy Larsen; waterhill; Envisioning; AZ .44 MAG; umgud; ...

RKBA Ping List


This Ping List is for all things pertaining to the 2nd Amendment.

FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.

More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.

33 posted on 11/14/2017 8:04:42 AM PST by PROCON (#MAGA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: CGASMIA68

They will lose and the courts will order them to pay the defendants’ lawyer fees and they will cry how unfair it is. Just like the Aurora movie theater shooting.


38 posted on 11/14/2017 9:11:40 AM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Conservatives love America for what it is. Liberals hate America for the same reason.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: CGASMIA68

Did Remington Outdoor Co. even own Bushmaster at the time the rifle was sold?


40 posted on 11/14/2017 9:14:56 AM PST by MileHi (Liberalism is an ideology of parasites, hypocrites, grievance mongers, victims, and control freaks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: CGASMIA68

Sorry, but until all the anomalies have been adequately addressed, the SH official narrative is a stinking pile of trash. What parent of a murdered child is laughing until caught on CNN, then gives a phony melodramatic performance when he realizes the cameras are rolling?


43 posted on 11/14/2017 10:22:20 AM PST by SecAmndmt (Arm yourselves!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson