I agree wow. Not at Britt saying the truth but at the people who do that and have done that throughout history.
So what in your opinion is wrong with that ad? How does that ad market to people who do mass shootings?
So wait - who was the person that wanted to “carry out offensive, military style combat missions against their perceived enemies.”? The person who purchased the gun, the person supposedly influenced by these ads, didn't actually commit the crime. She was kind of dead at the time. What a bunch of unadulterated bullshit this whole case is.
Don't know, it is the reason I asked the question. Still going to be hard to correlate any advertisement to the kid wanting to shoot up the school. The kid was autistic and could be obsessed by any stimulus.
I did see this after you posed the question https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog...uction-moved-to-remingtons-ilion-ny-facility/
Remington does not own them. They are owned by another bigger company that oddly isn't being sued that owns them, Remington, Marlin, and I think a couple other companies.
Sigh Lets be real for a second I could give a shit who they market to. if weak ass people choose to go shoot up places that's on them. It really doesn't matter what anyone thinks that's up to the courts...
I get the tobacco argument (as bad as it is) but that ad isn't remotely the same. But I get what you're thinking - they both advertise using their product makes you cool. But the cool ads weren't what got tobacco in trouble it was the kids and the smoking being safe.
I don't know, never thought smoking made one cool, I have no opinion either way I just thought it was an interesting read. I thought the issue was a dead one till last night.
I always knew it didn't but the ads made it seem like it did and that's the only correlation I can see between tobacco advertising and what you posted so I figured that had to be the point you were making. If not I'm going back to confused
I was up at like 3am and saw something about it, wound up going down a rabbit hole about the case and the ruling from the Con supreme court, what I was reading was although gun manufactures have broad immunity that was passed and signed by Bush. The court ruled the dismissal was just under one law but not another. I figured they just found a work around in regards to the immunity. and that specific picture was one of the one I saw they used and there were others also. in the end violating their State fair trade law and is now allowing them to obtain internal documents... the documents are what sunk the tobacco industries case.
Remington, Bushmaster, Marlin, DPMS, Freedom Arms, AAC, Barnes, H&R Firearms, Dakota Arms, Para USA, Tapco, Parker Gunmakers all owned by Freedom Group which in turn is owned by Cerberus Capital Management (yes the same asshats who took Chrysler to the brink of closing).
Why would that matter, Trump is STILL getting the blame for that one! How many times can one train run off the rails??? Since they can't get what they really want, an all-out ban, they're going to try bankrupting the gun orgs and/or people who want them, just look at what they're doing in the Socialist State of NJ, they've increased all of their gun related form/permit rates by a huuuuge margin and in NY I believe they're passing a law requiring gun owners to have a million dollar policy. If Democrats KNOW anything, it's bankruptcy.
...speaking of moronic... Sorry, if you think the parents and family members of Sandy Hook victims are " hey, look at me, my baby died" money grubbers, you have more than a single screw loose upstairs.
Right, I don't think the post referenced the money grabbing attorneys - "look at me my baby died" refers to the parents... You wanna bash attorneys, have at it - different discussion