Court rules AR-15 gun maker can be sued over Sandy Hook shooting

**RB 60** · 03-17-2019, 11:29 PM

Originally Posted by Legion

If DEMOCRATS get their way, the effort will have to be made and the expense will have to be borne.

I'm not worried, they won't get their way in my lifetime. But if they do, very few of my guns are registered and no one knows I have them. The most accurate of my rifles are unregistered, as are most of my handguns.

**Text Drivers are Killers** · 03-18-2019, 06:25 PM

Originally Posted by Legion

Fortunately it's now possible to make your own guns with 3-D printing.

That is just getting started. Maybe in ten years it will be easy to do that.

**Text Drivers are Killers** · 03-18-2019, 06:26 PM

Originally Posted by RB 60

I'm not worried, they won't get their way in my lifetime. But if they do, very few of my guns are registered and no one knows I have them. The most accurate of my rifles are unregistered, as are most of my handguns.

The way to really have guns off the books is to buy black powder. BP revolvers are just as good as say a 44 special but there are no forms at all to fill out.

**Part Multi 313** · 03-18-2019, 06:47 PM

That doesn't make sense.

**RB 60** · 03-18-2019, 09:00 PM

Originally Posted by Text Drivers are Killers

The way to really have guns off the books is to buy black powder. BP revolvers are just as good as say a 44 special but there are no forms at all to fill out.

I have a few, as well as a few custom made flintlock rifles. The .44 isn't nearly as powerful as the .44 mag, but still more fun to shoot. Pain in the ass to clean though.

**Text Drivers are Killers** · 03-18-2019, 10:52 PM

Originally Posted by RB 60

I have a few, as well as a few custom made flintlock rifles. The .44 isn't nearly as powerful as the .44 mag, but still more fun to shoot. Pain in the ass to clean though.

Of course a 44 special is not as powerful as a 44 mag but for self defense against people or animals under 300 pounds, the 44 special is a better choice since it's easier to shoot and still powerful enough.

**RB 60** · 03-19-2019, 12:37 AM

Originally Posted by Text Drivers are Killers

Of course a 44 special is not as powerful as a 44 mag but for self defense against people or animals under 300 pounds, the 44 special is a better choice since it's easier to shoot and still powerful enough.

The .44 cap and ball revolver I shoot (the other is an old new in box Colt worth $$$) uses a .451 dia ball over (I use) 26 grs. (with patch) of FFFG powder. It's not max, but on the upper end and the most accurate. I'd say it's quite powerful enough for deer at close range with a well placed shot, definitely good enough for home protection. I went through over a pound of powder last year, lots of fun to shoot.

**Text Drivers are Killers** · 03-19-2019, 06:40 AM

Originally Posted by RB 60

The .44 cap and ball revolver I shoot (the other is an old new in box Colt worth $$$) uses a .451 dia ball over (I use) 26 grs. (with patch) of FFFG powder. It's not max, but on the upper end and the most accurate. I'd say it's quite powerful enough for deer at close range with a well placed shot, definitely good enough for home protection. I went through over a pound of powder last year, lots of fun to shoot.

Among BP revolvers, the 1858 remington is the best IMO.

**RB 60** · 03-19-2019, 08:23 AM

Originally Posted by Text Drivers are Killers

Among BP revolvers, the 1858 remington is the best IMO.

That's what I shoot. but I have an 1860 Colt Army repo new in box, both in .44. I have the molds for both .44 and the .50 cal. rifles too. I also have a pretty nice reloading bench. Hunting and shooting together is what kept my bond strong with my father throughout our lives. I am grateful for it.

**Abatis** · 03-19-2019, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by Centerleftfl

BECAUSE DUMBASS, CARS AREN'T DESIGNED TO KILL PEOPLE!!

Are words on a magazine page designed to kill?

Because THAT is what this case is about, the marketing of the gun.

No aspect of the gun's 'deadliness' or it's rate of fire, or any other attack on the gun or its availability to the general public is part of this lawsuit -- all of those concerns were thrown out because of the federal shield law.

This case is a 1st Amendment case now; the legal argument of the plaintiffs is that WORDS are designed to kill and that WORDS on a page were a precursor, a cause of the deaths at Sandy Hook. The plaintiffs want Remington held liable for the deaths because of how Remington described the gun and its capabilities in advertisements . . .

**Eagle_Eye** · 03-19-2019, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by Centerleftfl

BECAUSE DUMBASS, CARS AREN'T DESIGNED TO KILL PEOPLE!!

Guns aren't either shit head. Just like knives, base ball bats, poisons and all the other things that are used to kill people. What a stupid fuck you are. The only things that are specifically designed to kill people are WMD's.

**Superfreak** · 03-19-2019, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by StoneByStone

I actually agree with you on this one. The AR-15 should be illegal, but as long as it remains legal, people should have every right to make and sell them.

Why the AR15? Because the media has made it the weapon of choice for psychos? Because the media has scared you into thinking it is really really really bad?

You know what SHOULD be illegal? Gun free zones. Take a good hard look at where these shootings occur. How many are in gun free zones vs where people are potentially carrying?

**Abatis** · 03-19-2019, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by domer76

When topics like this arise, I always wait for the lame car/gun analogy from a halfwitted barrel stroker.

It does work well for this particular situation . . .

You can substitute any other product that might cause death and that is marketed / advertised featuring certain [potentially harmful / dangerous] performance characteristics -- think of a commercial showing a Ford Mustang being driven fast on a winding road; can somebody sue Ford because a family member was killed driving a Mustang fast on a winding road? Do the stipulations that the 'driving is being performed by a professional driver on a closed course' really protect Ford from being sued?

This court's decision is very dangerous; it actually has very little downside for gun companies (they won't be able to depict a soldier in their ads) but for other industries it could open them up to limitless liabilities.

**Wolverine** · 03-19-2019, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by Text Drivers are Killers

Can anyone explain why victims of car crashes don't sue the auto companies?. They sell cars that are DESIGNED to do 2-3 times the legal speed limit!! And they install radios and now internet access to distract drivers and cause crashes. And they air TV commercials that emphasize speeding. No company is as irresponsible as the car companies.

It should go to the Supreme court immediately

**Abatis** · 03-19-2019, 10:41 AM

Originally Posted by Wolverine

Originally Posted by Text Drivers are Killers

Can anyone explain why victims of car crashes don't sue the auto companies?. They sell cars that are DESIGNED to do 2-3 times the legal speed limit!! And they install radios and now internet access to distract drivers and cause crashes. And they air TV commercials that emphasize speeding. No company is as irresponsible as the car companies.

It should go to the Supreme court immediately

If Remington loses it certainly will because this suit will lead to car companies (and many other industries) being sued . . .

Not only are cars designed to exceed the speed limit THEY ARE MARKETED /ADVERTISED DOING JUST THAT.

That's what this case is now about, how a product is marketed and that marketing is directly, legally responsible for death and injury related to the product [even if that use is illegal].