In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

biden gun policy

mac10mac10 Member Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭✭

biden urging AG to sue gun companys with his blessing


  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 22,938 ✭✭✭✭

    With the decision by Remington to settle with Sandy Hook victims, the door is wide open for this type of garbage.

    The legislative protection of legitimate business is going to be destroyed by the courts as we move further into lawlessness.

    The Constitution is subject to the whim of a vocal minority, as is every law currently on the books.

    As Americans, we cannot comply with lawlessness. We must resist for the very preservation of our Constitutional Republic.

    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • Cgaengineer Cgaengineer Member Posts: 5

    Best thing for a company to do is don't sell guns or ammunition to the US government. That * would stop immediately.

  • Ditch-RunnerDitch-Runner Member Posts: 21,714 ✭✭✭✭

    Remington opened the door by giving 22 million to just to get the lawsuits off there back and close out old ties but undoing so showed the left keep up the pressure and lawyer up the government has endless supply ( of our money to fight with

  • competentonecompetentone Member Posts: 4,694 ✭✭✭

    A few important points:

    "Remington" didn't really settle. The company that was being sued is bankrupt and dissolved. It was the insurance companies that had been providing insurance to the now gone "Remington" who have settled.

    Settling out of court does NOT set any "legal precedent." Legal precedents are set only by court rulings, and this settlement is arrived at by the parties involved out of court.

    Litigation is expensive. Juries (and judges) in a highly emotional case involving the deaths of children are very unpredictable. The average person -- and thus the average juror -- is not any strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment, nor has much interest or opinion on the Constitution; most can't think particularly rationally once their "emotions" are turned on -- and "turning on the jurors' emotions" would have been the primary tactic of the plaintiffs' lawyers in this case.

    I can completely understand the insurance company wanting to settle and not go before a jury.

    We are unlikely to ever get any tort reform, since most of our legislators are lawyers and "love" the system as it's structured, but if it were possible to modify our court system where juries would be chosen from a group of people who have received training, learning critical thinking skills, there might be some chance to make our court systems a more reasonable place. Right now, in the idiocrasy we are living in, where a company has to submit itself to today's jurors, companies sometimes have to take the "least expensive route" they can manage -- and that often involves settling out of the courts.

  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 22,938 ✭✭✭✭

    While it does not set a legal precedent, competentone, it certainly emboldens others to launch lawsuits.

    The end result is the same to a great degree. Endless hounding of a legal industry for political and agenda driven reasons.

    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • rhythm_guyrhythm_guy Member Posts: 1,510 ✭✭✭

    Back in the 80s I worked for the company that made commercial deep fryers for McDonald's. A moron teenager stood on a fryer to change a light bulb, stepped in the hot grease and sued the company over his injury. No way in the world any reasonable court would find that to be the manufacturer's fault, but they settled with the kid for $20,000.

    I knew then that the legal system is worthless as long as people and companies put the almighty dollar above principles. And curious how many other times they caved, and how many times that has been used as precedent for other such stupid decisions.

Sign In or Register to comment.