Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Hillary being a cunt on gun control

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Dorado said:

Hey, wait a minute. 

How come you ain't dogballs Tom ?

I am.

All just different ways of saying "assault weapon," which just means "gun that TeamD wants to ban."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/27/2018 at 10:11 AM, dogballs Tom said:

Speaking of being a cunt, some forum administrator has disabled my ability to talk about my assault weapon by naming the caliber.

I guess if you can't counter an argument, you suppress it. Or try.

marlin-assault-rifles.jpg

Looks like I can still post assault weapon images.

(pics of dogballs, with flowers)

So I guess I'll have to just use an image instead of a reference to the caliber.

This should work out swell if you don't mind neutralizing yourself, and if your database doesn't crash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/10/2018 at 3:31 AM, dogballs Tom said:

If you bothered reading Feinstein's nonsense, you'd know why I say it covers ordinary dogballs's. Because of this part:

I looked at it. 100 pages of single-spaced, outlawed gun models, and 25 pages of text.  DiFi is being very specific. It seems she is attempting to represent your interests, with integrity, but that you are insatiable for details. 

Only one side of this major controversy is losing sleep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/2/2018 at 4:29 PM, Mark K said:

Not really. Discussing the question with someone who can't tell the difference between these two rounds...

 22_223a.jpg

 

...would be a discussion with either a moron or a victim of mental illness. Perhaps someone who has been horribly brain-washed, I dare not guess.  I think it best to leave such in the hands of professionals.    

Uh oh.

11 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Shoot someone with that little tiny dogballs round and they will meet their maker at exactly the same time as someone shot with that larger round. Who are you kidding?


Mark? You want to field that one, or should we summon the people in white coats?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

Uh oh.


Mark? You want to field that one, or should we summon the people in white coats?

You're making stuff up. There's a reason the Mafia used a dogballs to kill. They needed to make sure the subject was good and dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/30/2018 at 9:32 PM, badlatitude said:

You're making stuff up.

Yes, the idea that Mark might apply his statement to a TeamD type is a flight of fancy but you've gotta admit it's funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor Tom. He has been so victimized, by the dogball abuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Poor Tom. He has been so victimized, by the dogball abuse.

Is Dogball's name really Tom?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Blue Crab said:
7 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

The fact that her gun, like many others, can be illegally modified does not mean that it's "crap" to point out that her gun is an "assault weapon" just like an AR 15 or any other scary black gun. It just means I do what others here do not and read the definitions in laws. Why that's offensive is beyond me. Because illegal mods are possible? Huh?

"Possible" ... good one. A kid could do it in 20 minutes. We're not talking machine shop work here or specialty tools. 

Wake the fuck up. 


Mark?

Got another one who can't tell the difference between a squirrel gun and a battlefield gun. I'll just start piling them up here so we'll have a central thread to which to send the people in white coats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

"Possible" ... good one. A kid could do it in 20 minutes. We're not talking machine shop work here or specialty tools. 

Wake the fuck up. 

Unmodified, Tom's Marlins on the blue blankie shoot eighteen or fifteen rounds; they are not harmless. Wake the fuck up, while crusading for gunz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:
11 hours ago, Sean said:

To get around the shield law, plaintiffs would have to prove negligence. Can the act of manufacturing guns be considered negligent?

No


I agree with Jeff's answer but would point out that, for purposes of competing in a TeamD Presidential Primary, the correct answer is "yes," as Bernie showed when he folded like a cheap tent after Hillary attacked him on that issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:


I agree with Jeff's answer but would point out that, for purposes of competing in a TeamD Presidential Primary, the correct answer is "yes," as Bernie showed when he folded like a cheap tent after Hillary attacked him on that issue.

The answer is obviously no. (no sarcasm font on my iPhone).

i think the question of negligence centers on the manufacturers marketing campaign. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Sean said:

i think the question of negligence centers on the manufacturers marketing campaign. 

Do you think it's reckless to name a car model Charger?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:

Do you think it's reckless to name a car model Charger?

No. In case you missed it, I haven’t taken a position on this. I’m tired of banging my head against the wall. 

Enjoy your gun thread. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Sean said:

i think the question of negligence centers on the manufacturers marketing campaign. 

Seems like a position to me.

I haven't seen any of this "negligent" $peech.

Was reading Times v Sullivan this morning, in which the Supreme Court reaffirmed that advertisements enjoy first amendment protection. That means any cen$or$hip of advertising is going to need some compelling reasons. If any can be found...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A court will decide
 

Quote

 

Today the Connecticut Supreme Court revived a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the rifle used in the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, the company that distributed the gun, and the store that sold it to the perpetrator's mother. The court agreed with the trial judge that the plaintiffs, a survivor of the attack and relatives of nine people murdered at the school, could not sue under a theory of "negligent entrustment." But it said they could sue under the theory that Remington, which owns the company that makes the Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle used by Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza, violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) by marketing the gun, a variation on the Colt AR-15, in a way that emphasized its "militaristic and assaultive qualities."

...

The plantiffs cite these examples of "unethical and irresponsible marketing practices":

The defendants unethically promoted their assault weapons for offensive, military style missions by publishing advertisements and distributing product catalogs that (1) promote the AR-15 as ''the uncompromising choice when you demand a rifle as mission adaptable as you are,'' (2) depict soldiers moving on patrol through jungles, armed with Bushmaster rifles, (3) feature the slogan ''[w]hen you need to perform under pressure, Bushmaster delivers,'' superimposed over the silhouette of a soldier holding his helmet against the backdrop of an American flag, (4) tout the ''military proven performance'' of firearms like the XM15-E2S, (5) promote civilian rifles as ''the ultimate combat weapons system,'' (6) invoke the unparalleled destructive power of their AR-15 rifles, (7) claim that the most elite branches of the United States military, including the United States Navy SEALs, the United States Army Green Berets and Army Rangers, and other special forces, have used the AR-15, and (8) depict a close-up of an AR-15 with the following slogan: ''Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered.''

The lawsuit argues that such messages would appeal to a troubled young man like Lanza, that they may have influenced him to choose the XM15 from among his mother's guns when he attacked the elementary school, and that the attack would have been less deadly if he had used a different gun. All of those claims are questionable, and it is hard to see how a reasonable jury, even if it found the Bushmaster ads distasteful, could conclude that they were "a proximate cause" of mass murder. But thanks to this ruling, the plaintiffs will have a chance to make that case.

 

I try to keep my assault weapons pictures a bit less scary, like this one:

SWVictoryFlower.jpg

But if I could find an actor willing to dress as a soldier near such a gun, would it really be a "proximate cause" of mass murder?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Just get drunk and it's the bar tenders fault

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48190408

call me crazy but I think it kind of fucked up that the bar tender & the bar might be held liable for a mass shooting but not the gun manufacturer.....


Nah, the word for someone with your point of view is cunt, as the thread title indicates.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/27/2018 at 1:11 PM, Importunate Tom said:

Speaking of being a cunt, some forum administrator has disabled my ability to talk about my assault weapon by naming the caliber.

I guess if you can't counter an argument, you suppress it. Or try.

marlin-assault-rifles.jpg

Looks like I can still post assault weapon images.

SWVictory22silver-flower.jpg

So I guess I'll have to just use an image instead of a reference to the caliber.

July 27th a day that will forever be memorialized  on PA.  Much like the day Malarkey’s Yoo Ho thread turned to gold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Fakenews said:

July 27th a day that will forever be memorialized  on PA.

I'll remember it as the day the moderators here admitted that TeamD really can't defend their stupidity and must censor and call names instead.

DiFiScreenshotTruth.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

I'll remember it as the day the moderators here admitted that TeamD really can't defend their stupidity and must censor and call names instead.

DiFiScreenshotTruth.jpg

dogballs

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remington Arms Co. v. Soto

The Supreme Court has been asked to take up an issue related to the PLCAA.

Quote

Issue: Whether the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act’s predicate exception encompasses alleged violations of broad, generally applicable state statutes, such as the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, which forbids “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THE BIDEN PLAN TO END OUR DWINDLING GUN VIOLENCE EPIDEMIC

Quote

Hold gun manufacturers accountable. In 2005, then-Senator Biden voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, but gun manufacturers successfully lobbied Congress to secure its passage. This law protects these manufacturers from being held civilly liable for their products – a protection granted to no other industry. Biden will prioritize repealing this protection.

Though endlessly repeated by lying politicians and their propagandists, it's just plain not true that other industries don't get liability protections.

General Aviation Revitalization Act

Quote

GARA is a statute of repose generally shielding most manufacturers of aircraft (carrying fewer than 20 passengers), and aircraft parts, from liability for most accidents (including injury or fatality accidents) involving their products that are 18 years old or older (at the time of the accident), even if manufacturer negligence was a cause.

It's broader than the exemption granted to firearms manufacturers after grabbers tried to sue them out of business. Careful readers can find an exemption even in the case of manufacturer negligence, as in this post:

On 4/20/2015 at 9:34 PM, Jim M said:
Quote

 

Cite or it didn't happen. The Lawful Commerce in Arms Act does not protect them from suits for product defects. Just suits for things like suicides, which are the main topic of this thread.

 

 

"(5) an action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense, then such act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property damage; or

 

That definitely does protect them from lawsuits for product defects even when a child does not know the meaning of "volitional"


But by "careful readers" I mean people who are careful to avoid the three little words preceding section 5:

Shall not include

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/15/2019 at 5:45 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Remington Arms Co. v. Soto

The Supreme Court has been asked to take up an issue related to the PLCAA.

Quote

Issue: Whether the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act’s predicate exception encompasses alleged violations of broad, generally applicable state statutes, such as the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, which forbids “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.”

 

Cert denied

Quote

The families sued the makers of the gun that was used, an AR-15 style weapon made by Remington, in 2014, alleging that the company’s marketing of the weapon inspired Adam Lanza to commit the massacre.

What a load of crap.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Cert denied

What a load of crap.

 

 

Why?  Here, I'll supply you with the lower court decision that was left undisturbed.  It turns on the meaning of the word 'applicable' in the Federal statute.  https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/331CR865.pdf

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Why?  Here, I'll supply you with the lower court decision that was left undisturbed.  It turns on the meaning of the word 'applicable' in the Federal statute.  https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/331CR865.pdf

 

 

Huh, I don't see any commentary in the order list, so why quote the CT SC ruling as if that is the reason SCOTUS didn't take it? It could also be that since the CT SC brought the case back to life, now we get to see what a jury thinks about it - and in another 2-5 years one of the parties will try again with SCOTUS.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
11 hours ago, bpm57 said:

Huh, I don't see any commentary in the order list, so why quote the CT SC ruling as if that is the reason SCOTUS didn't take it? It could also be that since the CT SC brought the case back to life, now we get to see what a jury thinks about it - and in another 2-5 years one of the parties will try again with SCOTUS.

 

Can anyone give me a readers digest version of what specifically the marketing was that supposedly caused newtown retard boy to kill kids?

was it the “man card revoked” one or something else?

edit to add:  if so, is there any credible evadents fuck boy ever saw it?  But more importantly, doesn’t that open up a HUGE can of 1st Amendment worms?  The add certainly didn’t say “Buy a bushmaster and kill elementary kids!”  Also the FCC would likely have had to approve the ad or certainly never objected to it. 
 

Also doesn’t this open up gaming companies to similar litigation because they are not even being subtle that their products promote and encourage shooting and killing people??  It wouldn’t be hard to make a leap that virtual FPS games are training devices for real shooters. The realism and immersion of VR FPS is incredible now and ARE used by LE and Mil to train people to kill. 
 

I just don’t see this case being successful except for getting Remington to settle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:
17 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Cert denied

Quote

The families sued the makers of the gun that was used, an AR-15 style weapon made by Remington, in 2014, alleging that the company’s marketing of the weapon inspired Adam Lanza to commit the massacre.

What a load of crap.

Why?

I just don't think marketing "inspired" the murderer to kill his mother, take her gun, and kill a bunch of kids. Maybe other mind-readers can more clearly see into an obviously disturbed mind and do believe that the marketing was responsible. I just don't see it.

17 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Here, I'll supply you with the lower court decision that was left undisturbed.  It turns on the meaning of the word 'applicable' in the Federal statute.  https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/331CR865.pdf

First, Administratrix is a funny word.

Second, part 6 of the syllabus ties the applicability to the load of crap.

Third,

Quote

In the present case, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants illegally marketed the XM15-E2S by promoting its criminal use for offensive civilian assaults, and that this wrongful advertising was a direct cause of the Sandy Hook massacre. At no time and in no way does the congressional statement indicate that firearm sellers should evade liability for the injuries that result if they promote the illegal use of their products.

That part of the majority opinion also clearly ties the applicability to the load of crap.

Robinson and the two other dissenters are right, IMO, about whether a generally applicable statute can be a predicate exception. It can't because allowing it would let the exceptions swallow the rule, as it is doing in this case.

Quote

My analysis of the relevant statutory text, case law, canons of construction, and legislative history demonstrates that Congress intended to limit predicate statutes under that exception to those statutes that relate specifically to the sale and manufacture of fire-arms.23 Consequently, I strongly disagree with the majority’s conclusion that CUTPA, which is a broadly drafted state unfair trade practices statute applicable to all commercial entities in a variety of factual circumstances, comes within that exception.24 Instead, I would conclude that, because CUTPA, both in its statutory text and in its implementation under the cigarette rule, reaches a range of commercial conduct that far exceeds the manufacture, marketing, and sale of firearms, it is not by itself a predicate statute. That state unfair trade practices statutes had not been used to hold firearms manufacturers civilly liable to crime victims25 renders the plaintiffs’ CUTPA claims particularly novel in the contemplation of Congress; see 15 U.S.C. § 7901 (a) (7)(2012); and, thus, subject to preclusion under the arms act.26 I conclude, therefore, that the arms act preempts the plaintiffs’ claims of immoral advertising in violation of CUTPA.27 I, therefore, respectfully disagree with part V of the majority’s opinion, and I would affirm the judgment of the trial court in its entirety.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Can anyone give me a readers digest version of what specifically the marketing was that supposedly caused newtown retard boy to kill kids? 

was it the “man card revoked” one or something else?

I think the answer is not just "something else" but "everything else."

From the majority opinion linked by CLEAN:

Quote

the plaintiffs allege that the defendants illegally marketed the XM15-E2S by promoting its criminal use for offensive civilian assaults

The part I bolded is, to me, a load of crap, but it does tie in nicely to the idea from a certain, unnamed half of our Duopoly that anyone who would buy or sell something deemed an "assault" weapon must like murdering kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/13/2019 at 5:00 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

I just don’t see this case being successful except for getting Remington to settle. 

That seems unlikely to me, as the line of people seeking a similar settlement would wind up being more expensive than fighting the case and winning.

Yeah, they might lose, but...
 

Quote

 

The plaintiffs still have to prove that Remington's marketing was not only "unfair or deceptive" under CUTPA but also, per the PLCAA, "a proximate cause" of the Sandy Hook massacre. The Connecticut Supreme Court also applies a proximity requirement to CUTPA claims.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, an industry group that asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take up this case, notes that the plaintiffs have not offered any evidence that Lanza or his mother, who bought the rifle he used, was "influenced in any way by any advertisement," let alone that advertising precipitated the mass shooting or made it deadlier. As the Connecticut Supreme Court itself observed while allowing the lawsuit to proceed, "proving such a causal link at trial may prove to be a Herculean task."

 

"We don't have any evidence, but the company ran an ad so it must have precipitated this crime" seems a pretty weak claim to me. That's the claim that will now be heard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

"We don't have any evidence, but the company ran an ad so it must have precipitated this crime" seems a pretty weak claim to me. That's the claim that will now be heard.

Why were the gun companies marketing battlefield firepower to citizens? I only ask because the four corners of their PR image was unhealthy. It was sick, not well, IMO.

As for non-wanker, non-imaginary "militias", Tim McVeigh slept on real militia couches, inside real  militia homes. The same figures are connected to bank robberies. Source: wiki.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/13/2019 at 6:31 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

I just don't think marketing "inspired" the murderer to kill his mother, take her gun, and kill a bunch of kids. Maybe other mind-readers can more clearly see into an obviously disturbed mind and do believe that the marketing was responsible.

If Bushmaster/Remington get found guilty, it will be interesting to see how long before the 1st lawsuit following the same path is filed against a sportscar manufacturer..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

w long before the 1st lawsuit following the same path is filed against a sportscar manufacturer..

lol.  people are marrying dogs now too, dontcha know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

.
 

"We don't have any evidence, but the company ran an ad so it must have precipitated this crime" seems a pretty weak claim to me. That's the claim that will now be heard.

That's not how expert witnesses work though Tom.  You understand how a trial works, right?  I can sent you a primer if you like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/12/2019 at 5:56 PM, bpm57 said:

Huh, I don't see any commentary in the order list, so why quote the CT SC ruling as if that is the reason SCOTUS didn't take it?

when a Court of Final Appeal doesn't take a case, the lower court's ruling is the law.  That's why I quoted it, you fucking dolt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/13/2019 at 6:31 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

 

First, Administratrix is a funny word.

 

 

I had to draft a contract today for acquisition of a swiss company.  It was to be signed by a woman whose title was 'Directrice'

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you know what the difference is between a Dominatrix and a Dominatrice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

hen a Court of Final Appeal doesn't take a case, the lower court's ruling is the law.

No shit. Yet what you said was.

On 11/12/2019 at 1:02 PM, MR.CLEAN said:

It turns on the meaning of the word 'applicable' in the Federal statute.

You are saying that the court agrees with the CT SC, and that is why it was denied.

“A simple order denying a petition for a writ of certiorari is not designed to reflect the Court’s views either as to the merits of the case or as to its jurisdiction” Supreme Court Practice and Procedure 10ed

"The denial means that this Court has refused to take the case. It means nothing else."-Frankfurter, J., dissenting in Darr v. BurFord

25 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

That's why I quoted it, you fucking dolt.

Oh look, its more of what passes for adult debate among the echo chamber.

29 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

lol.  people are marrying dogs now too, dontcha know.

I'm never surprised when I read about what happens in SF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

 

"The denial means that this Court has refused to take the case. It means nothing else."-Frankfurter, J., dissenting in Darr v. BurFord

You just cited dissent to prove something.  Do you realize what is wrong with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MR.CLEAN said:
13 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

.
 

"We don't have any evidence, but the company ran an ad so it must have precipitated this crime" seems a pretty weak claim to me. That's the claim that will now be heard.

That's not how expert witnesses work though Tom.  You understand how a trial works, right?  I can sent you a primer if you like.

Sure, send it along.

But without evidence that any ads were seen, let alone that they had the effect of precipitating a crime, it seems to me that they'll have to get an expert to say, essentially, "We don't have any evidence, but the company ran an ad so it must have precipitated this crime."

Maybe an expert can make is sound less stupid or more convincing. I doubt it but am happy to learn how you think one might.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

 

But without evidence that any ads were seen,

Now i'm confused. I thought there was no trial yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Now i'm confused. I thought there was no trial yet?

Then how can the ruling in a non-trial be "the law?"

10 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

when a Court of Final Appeal doesn't take a case, the lower court's ruling is the law.

Anyway, the plaintiffs have taken opportunities to present the claims they wish to make in the lawsuit.

From last March:
 

Quote

 

The plantiffs cite these examples of "unethical and irresponsible marketing practices":

The defendants unethically promoted their assault weapons for offensive, military style missions by publishing advertisements and distributing product catalogs that (1) promote the AR-15 as "the uncompromising choice when you demand a rifle as mission adaptable as you are," (2) depict soldiers moving on patrol through jungles, armed with Bushmaster rifles, (3) feature the slogan "[w]hen you need to perform under pressure, Bushmaster delivers," superimposed over the silhouette of a soldier holding his helmet against the backdrop of an American flag, (4) tout the "military proven performance" of firearms like the XM15-E2S, (5) promote civilian rifles as "the ultimate combat weapons system," (6) invoke the unparalleled destructive power of their AR-15 rifles, (7) claim that the most elite branches of the United States military, including the United States Navy SEALs, the United States Army Green Berets and Army Rangers, and other special forces, have used the AR-15, and (8) depict a close-up of an AR-15 with the following slogan: "Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered."

The lawsuit argues that such messages would appeal to a troubled young man like Lanza, that they may have influenced him to choose the XM15 from among his mother's guns when he attacked the elementary school, and that the attack would have been less deadly if he had used a different gun. All of those claims are questionable, and it is hard to see how a reasonable jury, even if it found the Bushmaster ads distasteful, could conclude that they were "a proximate cause" of mass murder. But thanks to this ruling, the plaintiffs will have a chance to make that case.

The legal theory that the court rejected, which aimed to take advantage of another exception to the PLCAA's protection, was potentially much more threatening to the gun industry. The plaintiffs argued that supplying military-style rifles to civilians in itself qualifies as negligent entrustment, a cause of action that involves transferring a "dangerous instrumentality" to someone whom the defendant knows or should know is apt to cause harm with it. According to the lawsuit, the business of selling "modern sporting rifles" to the general public is one giant tort, even though these guns are very rarely used to commit crimes.

 

"Would appeal." Not "did appeal and we can prove it."

They have to prove that the ads were SO UNFAIR and also that they caused the crime. I doubt they can prove either of those ridiculous claims. Do you think they can?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Then how can the ruling in a non-trial be "the law?"

Anyway, the plaintiffs have taken opportunities to present the claims they wish to make in the lawsuit.

From last March:
 

"Would appeal." Not "did appeal and we can prove it."

They have to prove that the ads were SO UNFAIR and also that they caused the crime. I doubt they can prove either of those ridiculous claims. Do you think they can?

You are confusing “the law” with “the facts,” which are established at trial. 
 

I don’t know that you are correctly spelling out the elements of the claim though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was trying to spell them out sarcastically.

Anyway, this part of the ruling might be of interest to some...

Quote

Subsequently, just a few years before Congress began considering predecessor legislation to PLCAA, the FTC entered into a new consent decree addressing wrongful advertising. In In re Beck’s North America, Inc., Docket No. C-3859, 1999 FTC LEXIS 40 (F.T.C. March 25, 1999),the commission prohibited the publication of advertisements that portrayed young adult passengers consuming alcohol while sailing, in a manner that was unsafe and depicted activities that ‘‘may also violate federal and state boating safety laws.’’ Id., *2. The consent decree prohibited the ‘‘future dissemination . . . of any . . . advertisement that . . . depicts activities that would violate [federal laws that make] it illegal to operate a vessel under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs.’’ (Citations omitted.)In re Beck’s North America,Inc., File No. 982-3092, 1998 FTC LEXIS 83, *15–16(F.T.C. August 6, 1998). More generally, the FTC cautioned that it ‘‘ha[d] substantial concern about advertising that depicts conduct that poses a high risk to health and safety. As a result, the [FTC] will closely scrutinize such advertisements in the future.’’

Oh dear. People actually drink and use illegal drugs on sailboats? The horror.

I want to see the ads in question.

I'm trying to think of a kind of racing that does NOT pose a high risk to health and safety. Boats, bikes, cars, planes are all out. And that's if the participants are sober!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/15/2019 at 10:55 AM, MR.CLEAN said:

You are confusing “the law” with “the facts,” which are established at trial. 
 

I don’t know that you are correctly spelling out the elements of the claim though. 

Is being confused about the facts a problem for you?

I ask because this is still incorrect:

On 3/29/2019 at 11:19 AM, MR.CLEAN said:

Oh c'mon you know that guns are the one thing in the world that's exempt from us consumer safety law.

As noted above, though Biden continues to repeat the same lie you did, it's still a lie.

On 10/31/2019 at 7:15 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Senator Biden voted Nay on the liability protection for aircraft makers. I guess he didn't notice or forgot that it passed and was signed by President Clinton anyway.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biden Being A Cunt On Gun Control
 

Quote

 

...This weekend Uncle Joe reached all the way back to 2005 when Sanders was still in the House of Representatives, bringing up his vote in favor of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). That’s the law that protects firearms manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits.

...

 

Hillary already did that last time around, prompting this thread, and Bernie folded like a cheap umbrella in a breeze.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Biden Being A Cunt On Gun Control
 

Hillary already did that last time around, prompting this thread, and Bernie folded like a cheap umbrella in a breeze.

Bernie folded, once exposed. his words became babble— he began to dissemble, like clipped Dogballs.


The PLCAA is at the core of the evil shit. It sits first among the targets of the well-informed elk.

Tom has called @Mr. CLEAN a liar over the terms of the PLCA.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/10/2019 at 6:05 PM, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

stupid, floppy, empty, dogballs. the cornpuffs of intellectual thought.

Tom features many, many Cocoa Puffs of intellectual thought 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jocal505 said:

...

Tom has called @Mr. CLEAN a liar over the terms of the PLCA. 

 

Actually, readers know that it is the terms of the similar liability exemption for the aircraft industry, not the gun industry, that made Clean's and Biden's statements incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Actually, readers know that it is the terms of the similar liability exemption for the aircraft industry, not the gun industry, that made Clean's and Biden's statements incorrect.

o let us bow to the dogballs

dogballs, he define what is correct 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Retarded readers, maybe.  Or maybe really old ones whose brains are a little feeble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
3 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Retarded readers, maybe.  Or maybe really old ones whose brains are a little feeble.

That wasn't a very nice thing to say to Jocal.  True, maybe.  But not nice.  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Retarded readers, maybe.  Or maybe really old ones whose brains are a little feeble.

Well, OK, let's see a link to the law and a quote of the section that you believe makes guns "the one thing in the world that's exempt from us consumer safety law."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/10/2019 at 3:02 PM, Fakenews said:

July 27th (2018) a day that will forever be memorialized  on PA.  Much like the day Malarkey’s Yoo Ho thread turned to gold.

On this page, DAY OF THE DOGBALLS  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you need some help backing up what you said, Clean, perhaps you can build on badlat's earlier work?

On 4/20/2015 at 9:34 PM, Jim M said:

"(5) an action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense, then such act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property damage; or

 

That definitely does protect them from lawsuits for product defects

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this