Gun Lovers, You're Screwed.

hanimmal

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
Remington is truly a evil corporation for this shit.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/akgpdg/remington-subpoenas-report-cards-of-five-children-killed-in-sandy-hook-shooting?utm_medium=social+&utm_source=VICE_Twitter
Screen Shot 2021-09-02 at 9.24.41 PM.png
In addition, Remington subpoenaed employment records of four teachers who were killed in the shooting, in which a total of 20 children and six adults died. Some of the parents of the Sandy Hook victims have been suing the weapons manufacturer since 2014, alleging that the gun manufacturer advertised its line of semi-automatic weapons to civilians. Remington previously responded to a discovery request for its internal company communications by producing more than 18,000 unsorted files containing memes, cartoons, and ice bucket challenge videos.


"We have no explanation for why Remington subpoenaed the Newtown Public School District to obtain the kindergarten and first grade academic, attendance and disciplinary records of these five school children,” Josh Koskoff, one of the lawyers representing the Sandy Hook parents, told Motherboard.

“The records cannot possibly excuse Remington’s egregious marketing conduct, or be of any assistance in estimating the catastrophic damages in this case. The only relevant part of their attendance records is that they were at their desks on December 14, 2012.”

Remington’s lawyers did not immediately return Motherboard’s request for comment.
Click to expand...
Screen Shot 2021-09-02 at 9.28.05 PM.pngScreen Shot 2021-09-02 at 9.28.46 PM.pngScreen Shot 2021-09-02 at 9.29.04 PM.png
Click to expand...
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Legally speaking, all gun laws are infringements of the 2nd amendment.

I guess all those "I took an oath to protect the constitution types" are waiting for permission to protect it. Silly. Obedient. Predictible.
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Legally speaking, all gun laws are infringements of the 2nd amendment.

I guess all those "I took an oath to protect the constitution types" are waiting for permission to protect it. Silly. Obedient. Predictible.
Click to expand...
Nope, the purpose of the 2nd is quite clear, for the maintenance of a militia, or today a national guard. You were allowed to be armed so the state could draft you and your gun in it's defense, guns were in short supply.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
DIY-HP-LED said:
Nope, the purpose of the 2nd is quite clear, for the maintenance of a militia, or today a national guard. You were allowed to be armed so the state could draft you and your gun in it's defense, guns were in short supply.
Click to expand...
That is inaccurate, evasive and misleading. People have a right to defend themselves proportionate to the level of attack they are under, whether an oppressive government recognizes it or not.

To have "gun control" insists that some people would have begun with more rights than others, because in order to disarm some peaceful people
you'd have to use guns to do it. Which is sort of a circular logic rationale, probably why you like it.

So if people don't have a right to be armed, they couldn't possibly delegate that right to government to be armed could they ?
 
hanimmal

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
You love guns, it's how you would make people pay for your ideas. Why can't you own that fact?
Click to expand...
lol I know it is hard for you to sometimes accept reality, but I have never had a boss hold a gun to my head telling me to pay FICA.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
hanimmal said:
lol I know it is hard for you to sometimes accept reality, but I have never had a boss hold a gun to my head telling me to pay FICA.
Click to expand...
Just because you're willing to deny reality to make your ideas seem peaceful, they have a gun behind them and you know it.

Would you use guns to disarm otherwise peaceful people who keep guns to defend themselves ? I think you might.
 
hanimmal

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Just because you're willing to deny reality to make your ideas seem peaceful, they have a gun behind them and you know it.

Would you use guns to disarm otherwise peaceful people who keep guns to defend themselves ? I think you might.
Click to expand...
I believe that you are incorrect on all counts. You like to pretend that the small world that you have constructed in your mind is reality, but it is not.
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
That is inaccurate, evasive and misleading. People have a right to defend themselves proportionate to the level of attack they are under, whether an oppressive government recognizes it or not.

To have "gun control" insists that some people would have begun with more rights than others, because in order to disarm some peaceful people
you'd have to use guns to do it. Which is sort of a circular logic rationale, probably why you like it.

So if people don't have a right to be armed, they couldn't possibly delegate that right to government to be armed could they ?
Click to expand...
In the end it's all about power, the collective has it, the individual does not, if not the collective, then some warlord or gang. The only chance an individual has is as part of a community, individuals are vulnerable, banding together with neighbors makes ya strong, the sum is more than it's parts.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
DIY-HP-LED said:
In the end it's all about power, the collective has it, the individual does not, if not the collective, then some warlord or gang. The only chance an individual has is as part of a community, individuals are vulnerable, banding together with neighbors makes ya strong, the sum is more than it's parts.
Click to expand...
Except you'd use guns against otherwise peaceful people who reject your forced collective. Which is why you're a hypocrite.
 
CunningCanuk

CunningCanuk

Well-Known Member
DIY-HP-LED said:
Nope, the purpose of the 2nd is quite clear, for the maintenance of a militia, or today a national guard. You were allowed to be armed so the state could draft you and your gun in it's defense, guns were in short supply.
Click to expand...
It even says this in the constitution. I think if James Madison could have seen the future, the bill of rights would have been a bit shorter.
 
YardG

YardG

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
That is inaccurate, evasive and misleading. People have a right to defend themselves proportionate to the level of attack they are under, whether an oppressive government recognizes it or not.

To have "gun control" insists that some people would have begun with more rights than others, because in order to disarm some peaceful people
you'd have to use guns to do it. Which is sort of a circular logic rationale, probably why you like it.

So if people don't have a right to be armed, they couldn't possibly delegate that right to government to be armed could they ?
Click to expand...
There has never been a question about the government's monopoly on the use of force.

SCOTUS majorities did hold the view that the 2nd amendment could be limited to allowing for a militia, prior to the Heller decision. Obviously the court's make-up shifted to a more gun-friendly court over the years, and that's not likely to change anytime soon.

You go ahead and try arguing in court that you had a right to respond to oppressive government violence with violence and see where that gets you.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
YardG said:
There has never been a question about the government's monopoly on the use of force.

SCOTUS majorities did hold the view that the 2nd amendment could be limited to allowing for a militia, prior to the Heller decision. Obviously the court's make-up shifted to a more gun-friendly court over the years, and that's not likely to change anytime soon.

You go ahead and try arguing in court that you had a right to respond to oppressive government violence with violence and see where that gets you.
Click to expand...
Which can only mean. people are not free and are held in a state of capture....by government guns.
 
Budley Doright

Budley Doright

Well-Known Member
YardG said:
There has never been a question about the government's monopoly on the use of force.

SCOTUS majorities did hold the view that the 2nd amendment could be limited to allowing for a militia, prior to the Heller decision. Obviously the court's make-up shifted to a more gun-friendly court over the years, and that's not likely to change anytime soon.

You go ahead and try arguing in court that you had a right to respond to oppressive government violence with violence and see where that gets you.
Click to expand...
Your wasting your time and breath. In the utopian land of Rob there are no courts and everyone gets along due to mutual agreement of everything otherwise you are a slave ...... yes unfortunately we’re all slaves until you and a 14 year old mutually agree to have sex then your no longer a slave, just a pedophile in the name of freedom. He’s probably still shedding salty tears for being told to follow the rules at a quickie mart, making him a slave, poor fella.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Budley Doright said:
Your wasting your time and breath. In the utopian land of Rob there are no courts and everyone gets along due to mutual agreement of everything otherwise you are a slave ...... yes unfortunately we’re all slaves until you and a 14 year old mutually agree to have sex then your no longer a slave, just a pedophile in the name of freedom. He’s probably still shedding salty tears for being told to follow the rules at a quickie mart, making him a slave, poor fella.
Click to expand...
That's an inaccurate description borne from your ignorance.


How do you feel about forcibly injecting a 12 year old or doing it without their parents knowledge? Should government guns be used to back that up?
 
CatHedral

CatHedral

Well-Known Member
DIY-HP-LED said:
Nope, the purpose of the 2nd is quite clear, for the maintenance of a militia, or today a national guard. You were allowed to be armed so the state could draft you and your gun in it's defense, guns were in short supply.
Click to expand...
To be fair, “well-regulated militia” means something else today than 250 years ago.

Well-regulated meant being a usefully good shot, able to hit what is aimed at.

Militia was every able-bodied male between a pair of defined ages.

The purpose was to enable the populace to stay in practice with the principal infantry weapon, so that if they are called up, they have that skill.

So the amendment is plausibly codifying an individual right, though there is judicial support also for it being a collective right with reduced individual entitlements. I don’t expect this SC to do much to this issue. They are too busy undoing abortion and voting rights.

From reason dot com (right-leaning, factuality high):

www.google.com

What Is a 'Well Regulated Militia,' Anyway?

The Founders liked militias, but they also liked an armed citizenry. To them, the two ideas were inseparable.
www.google.com www.google.com
 
Last edited:
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
CatHedral said:
To be fair, “well-regulated militia” means something else today than 250 years ago.

Well-regulated meant being a usefully good shot, able to hit what is aimed at.

Militia was every able-bodied male between a pair of defined ages.

The purpose was to enable the populace to stay in practice with the principal infantry weapon, so that if they are called up, they have that skill.

So the amendment is plausibly codifying an individual right, though there is judicial support also for it being a collective right with reduced individual entitlements. I don’t expect this SC to do much to this issue. They are too busy undoing abortion and voting rights.
Click to expand...
Would you be okay with using guns to remove guns from otherwise peaceful people ? If not, how else would you institute gun control?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top