Scotus -oh dear, Remington

[blues]

Yeah, it's really too bad that Hillary did not get elected. Because she would have been so much more pro-gun than Trump, and would have certainly elected more pro-gun judges.

Her recent suicides have taken on an alternative to firearms theme. You'd think she, of all people, would see the good in ensuring the availability of firearms.


/s

[whomever]

I've never understood the 'sue 'em into oblivion' strategy.

Suppose it succeeds beyond their wildest imaginations - Remington, Ruger, S&W, Marlin, Savage, and every other large gun maker is sued into oblivion, their machinery is melted for scrap, their factories are razed and salt sown into the ground.

Will that lead to the long sought gun free utopia, where gangbangers revert to switchblades? I don't think so - I'd just expect gun manufacturing to continue with much smaller transient companies, in the style of Jennings/Bryco/Jimenez, with perhaps some smuggled and black market guns on the side.

It would suck for people who like high quality guns, but it isn't going to affect misuse of guns.

[Poconnor]

Does this mean I could sue Hollywood and rap music for promoting the criminal misuse of firearms? I think they have a lot more money than Remington

[blues]

And what about all the endless video games?

[OlongJohnson]

I've never understood the 'sue 'em into oblivion' strategy.

Suppose it succeeds beyond their wildest imaginations - Remington, Ruger, S&W, Marlin, Savage, and every other large gun maker is sued into oblivion, their machinery is melted for scrap, their factories are razed and salt sown into the ground.

Will that lead to the long sought gun free utopia, where gangbangers revert to switchblades? I don't think so - I'd just expect gun manufacturing to continue with much smaller transient companies, in the style of Jennings/Bryco/Jimenez, with perhaps some smuggled and black market guns on the side.

It would suck for people who like high quality guns, but it isn't going to affect misuse of guns.

It's not about the guns. It's not about misuse of guns. It's not about gun control, it's about mind control: they are fighting a culture war, and they are fighting it on a generational timescale. Lawfare is just one weapon. They frankly don't care about violent crime and they don't care about prohibited persons having guns. Prohibited persons aren't likely to vote against them in a future election, so they don't matter.

[Hambo]

Yeah, it's really too bad that Hillary did not get elected. Because she would have been so much more pro-gun than Trump, and would have certainly elected more pro-gun judges.

That's ancient fucking history at this point. We've got real fights going on at the state level, and this denial doesn't help us.

[Ed L]

Don't want to go all Chicken Little here but it would seem that:

1. OrangeManBad is the savior as he appointed progun justices isn't working out. Can't get 4 progun to take the case?
2. This may launch many other suits based on the Conn. case - tying up gun industry resources.
3. What does this mean about other progun cases that are supposed to save us at SCOTUS?

Load your weapons with cognitive dissonance and selective information processing and let the discussion wars begin.

The premise is that the advertising promotes aggressive ideation leading the psychologically vulnerable to commit these acts of violence. That premise is controversial in the literature. It will put a tamper on all the 'kill em dead', ultimate man stopper advertising in the gun industry.

Glenn, I am tired of your gloating posts every time something does not go well for gunowners and about Trump not being a pro-gun savior. I don't think anyone thought he was an ideal candidate or a pro-gun saviour; only that he was better than the alternative and who she would have appointed.

I am sure we would have done much better with Hillary as president and her supreme court justices.

[Ed L]

That's ancient fucking history at this point. We've got real fights going on at the state level, and this denial doesn't help us.

I am not in denial that we have major problems at state levels. I am responded to a specific post about Trump and his supreme court choices not saving us.

[BillSWPA]

The Supreme Court accepts only a small percentage of petitions for certiorari. They typically accept only those which require a decision on an important principle of constitutional law. Reading too much into a denial is completely incorrect, and reads way too much into this action.

At this point, all we have is the allegations of each side. The plaintiffs have alleged facts which, if true, may fall within an exception to the federal statute. It may be that the Supreme Court wants to see how the evidence plays out in the lower courts before acting on it, giving it a more solid set of facts on which to base a decision. Because of the great weight that Supreme Court cases carry, they try to decide as little as possible in order to resolve the case before it.

I find it amazing that the same people who are quick to criticize Trump and Republicans for the occasional shortcoming are often the same ones who are willing to excuse far greater shortcomings among liberals and Democrats.

[TheNewbie]

What moron looks to any politician as a savior?

What moron cannot understand the lesser of two evils?

What moron cannot understand you don’t fix things overnight?


I look for Trump to stop the left, not to make the USA perfect. Unfortunately people are so clueless they either don’t understand how big of a threat the left is, or people cannot get past their own “I’m so wonderful” self image and support an imperfect fighter against the left.