You have got to be f**king kidding me

"TheD0k_2many toys 2little time" (thed0ck)
12/15/2014 at 17:02 • Filed to: Idiots in america, America land of the stupid

Ill just let this article speak for itself.

Like what the fuck? You cant sue Jif if their peanut butter gives you reactions when you are allergic to peanuts.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

DISCUSSION (34)

HammerheadFistpunch > TheD0k_2many toys 2little time
12/15/2014 at 17:05

old tactic, Im not sure there has been precedent of success.

GhostZ > TheD0k_2many toys 2little time
12/15/2014 at 17:08

You can sue anyone. Doesn't mean it actually will even go to court.

Truth be told, as far as I'm aware, the AR-15 is not exactly a hunting rifle but claiming that it's overwhelming in firepower is a little silly considering the other vast array of weapons out there just as, or more deadly and accessible.

I think the problem here isn't the manufacturing of the rifle, but the availability of its sale. In other words, regulations are not tight enough to prevent it from falling into the hands of someone who will use it against its intended purpose.

That being said, it's the same approach that Cigarettes came under a long time ago. Since US regulation was lobbied to hell and would never change, people went after the corporations for criminal negligence. A class-action lawsuit from people harmed by the negligent sale of AR-15s could very well have some legal basis to get the companies in some very hot water.

Basically, yes, going after the manufacturer is not necessarily the correct thing to do, but when the normal channels are corrupt or inert, open court is one of the constitution's mechanisms to circumvent that and still help people.

Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies > TheD0k_2many toys 2little time
12/15/2014 at 17:08

Apparently we have some tame guns in our household. Not a single one of them have snuck out and has shot anyone, held up someone, or incited a riot. Strangest thing.

JustWaitingForAMate > TheD0k_2many toys 2little time
12/15/2014 at 17:12

30 rnd magazine, 5.56. Overwhelming firepower.

Kinja'd!!!

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

30 rnd magazine. 5.56. Not overwhelming firepower?

Kinja'd!!!

Textured Soy Protein > TheD0k_2many toys 2little time
12/15/2014 at 17:13

Speaking as the resident Oppo liberal who hypocritically owns two vehicles that get shitty gas mileage,

"Guns. Fuck em."

GhostZ > Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies
12/15/2014 at 17:16

The crime that the lawsuit is attempting isn't blaming the company for shooting people, it's promoting and providing the means for significant harm to others through negligence of their products intended use. I think it's calling for a reclassification of the AR-15 at the distributor level to move it out of most civilian hands. There's a pretty big difference in function between an AR-15 and a Remington 700.

This is sort of like blaming Blockbuster for selling R-Rated movies to kids. Yeah, the movies themselves aren't illegal and can be great, but in the hands of a child it could cause trauma.

PS9 > GhostZ
12/15/2014 at 17:19

My gut feeling says this won't work. Guns will never be tightly regulated in the US as they are elsewhere, and people who aren't supposed to get them will always have at least one channel of availability to turn to as a result.

Evil-B > TheD0k_2many toys 2little time
12/15/2014 at 17:20

Yeah its such crap, My bushmaster m4 patrolman never hurt anyone.

Technically that's not true the bastard thing went kabooooom on me one day at the range leaving powder burns on my forearm and a couple of chunks of skin missing, I still miss that gun but I would never by another one.

I'll by AK variant instead :)

GhostZ > JustWaitingForAMate
12/15/2014 at 17:20

I think the approach is a reclassification of semiautomatic rifles.

That being said, the AR-15's availability, modifications, and, well, general military context make it a pretty good example to throw up when people talk about "A Gun that's only designed for hunting humans"

GhostZ > PS9
12/15/2014 at 17:21

Oh, it definitely won't work. I'd be shocked if they even get to court. My guess is that the company is going to throw down some money in a settlement, scare the other party into accepting, and sweep the whole thing under the rug.

Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies > GhostZ
12/15/2014 at 17:22

An AR-15 isn't an assault weapon. It is a semi-auto rifle, just like a 10/22 or a Browning BAR(not the WWII weapon, the hunting rifle). Guess what the guy in Colorado used? A shotgun. Guess what Adam Lanza used in Newtown? According to coroner reports, a handgun. The two AR-15's weren't even used. This is just people trying to take others rights, because they don't agree with them. Last time I checked, I couldn't take someone's freedom of speech because I thought their points were offensive.

JustWaitingForAMate > GhostZ
12/15/2014 at 17:24

Which you can argue back; when did ease of modification = killing humans?

If you made a car that was easy to modify does that mean it is = speeding/dangerous driving?

jariten1781 > TheD0k_2many toys 2little time
12/15/2014 at 17:24

This won't go anywhere.

This law prevents it: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15…

People used to do that, and Congress passed it pretty overwhelmingly to stop these cases. I'd be surprised if it made it to trial.

GhostZ > Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies
12/15/2014 at 17:27

That's missing the point entirely. This has nothing to do with rights, but with corporate responsibility. No one is attacking anyone's right to own firearms here at all. They're attacking the company's right to sell, market, and distribute a weapon under (and this is the weakest part of the argument) the pretense as a weapon designed for combat against people.

I think they want a reclassification of semi-automatic weapons that makes them harder for the civilians to get ahold of, possibly based on the physical design of the rifle itself, and/or restrictions on marketing.

I'm getting a very "Cigarettes in the 60s" vibe here with the choice to go after corporate distributors rather than government regulation.

As for the right to bear arms, let's level for a second and admit that the only right to bear arms that you have is directly related to how hard you'll scream and fight to get your hands on a gun. People only own guns because it's still convenient and profitable for the government and black market to let them, not because of a piece of paper. Guns have their purpose just like any tool, but the government has a lot more power determining the barrier of entry than the people do, and they always will.

GhostZ > JustWaitingForAMate
12/15/2014 at 17:29

It's a weak argument, for sure, and a holistic one, but it is plausible. There's a reason they don't advertise sports cars going over the speed limit in commercials anymore, or why Cigarettes can't advertise as being healthy.

Kanaric > JustWaitingForAMate
12/15/2014 at 17:34

keep in mind in places that don't allow pistol grips, like california, also have limited magazine capacity.

Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies > GhostZ
12/15/2014 at 17:36

And that is exactly why the 2nd Amendment Exists, for when the government completely oversteps their power.

GhostZ > Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies
12/15/2014 at 17:40

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds? A civil militia rebelling against the US government would get put down so incredibly fast that not a single shot would need to be fired. Guns are literally the crudest way to wage war in today's world compared to financial tools, information manipulation, and anti-terrorism acts are more than enough to lock down half the country in the event of a civil uprising.

You raise guns against the US government and claim they overstep their boundaries, all bets are off. The government "overstepped" these bounds somewhere in the early 1800s, probably around Thomas Jefferson's presidency.

Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies > GhostZ
12/15/2014 at 17:47

I said that is what it is for, it's pretty simply stated.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

AMGtech - now with more recalls! > GhostZ
12/15/2014 at 17:55

Sooooo, what yer sayin' is that gun companies are going to go the way of movie rentals companies?

GhostZ > Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies
12/15/2014 at 18:08

That's the security of a free state against invasion not against itself.

GhostZ > AMGtech - now with more recalls!
12/15/2014 at 18:09

Nah, unless a company will sell me a digital gun I can download and stream to my 3D printer for pennies.

...oh wait.

haveacarortwoorthree > GhostZ
12/15/2014 at 18:16

Um, no it is not. See the Federalist Papers or any number of historical sources.

Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies > GhostZ
12/15/2014 at 18:16

If it wasn't about a possible rebellion, there would be no thought about the infringement of rights in it.

GhostZ > Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies
12/15/2014 at 18:20

People only own guns because it's still convenient and profitable for the government and black market to let them, not because of a piece of paper

You're suggesting that a line in a piece of paper written 200 years ago is going to stop the government from putting down a civil rebellion with swift and mighty force?

How did that work in 1861?

45bullets > TheD0k_2many toys 2little time
12/15/2014 at 18:35

i read a story. I guy keeps a gun in his house. One day, His son brings a friend to his house and find the gun. they mess around with it and the son is shot and dies. Who does the father sue? The gun manufacturer.Even though the reason for that happening was that he incorrectly stored the weapon and in all probability, left the safety "off" and kept the gun loaded.

SmoresTM Has No Chill (O==[][]==O) > Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies
12/15/2014 at 18:35

It's actually not. There are two ways to read that sentence.

1) Militias are necessary to the security of the state and, separately, people have the right to keep and bear arms.

2) Militias are necessary to the security of the state and the people IN THE MILITIA have the right to keep and bear arms. The rights of those people, who are in the militia, shall not be infringed.

Nothing in the constitution is simply stated. Absolutely nothing.

That being said, I'm pretty sure there's a law that directly applies to this and made more of a distinction than the constitution does. I'm not familiar with exactly what it says, but it, like any other piece of legislation, can be overturned. I highly doubt it will be though. Not in this case, at least.

GhostZ > Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies
12/15/2014 at 18:37

Also, just to drive point home, let's say roughly 20m of the 300m americans living in the US decided to go declare their own independent state somewhere within its borders. That's 20m, almost the entire population of Texas.

How would they feel about the seizure and loss of their live savings, a shutdown of their internet, a trade embargo with the US (and all of its partners, including the Eurozone) leaving their only potential allies in the world as China, Russia, and North Korea . What are they going to do if they lose? What happens if the majority of them decide they don't want to keep fighting, you think the remainder are just going to stay where they are? What happens when they can't even flee to another country (including China) without being extradited back to the US for trial?

What happens to 20m disgruntled civilians when they are threatened with the prospect of living out the rest of their lives in a significantly lower quality of life than their parents, or even grandparents, had, only AFTER putting their lives at significant risk against the largest empire (and its friends) in the world?

A mid-level executive at Goldman Sachs or a fiber optic operator in Alaska or Greenland can do more damage with a single phone call than a well-outfitted civilian militia can do in a year.

What happens is we end up with a big large protest that peters out, resulting in single minor skirmish because someone gets too trigger happy, and that gets put down so hard and fast that everyone else gets scared and throws down their guns, except for those who hop the border elsewhere, provided they haven't already committed crimes.

NJAnon > TheD0k_2many toys 2little time
12/15/2014 at 19:53

How much attention is needed for owning guns? It seems to me an insane amount of effort is needed to ensure no factor is overlooked at any point when involved with a firearm. However, just like some people can't drive, some people can't deal with owning a gun and the insane attention it requires and you get horrific results. I keep mentioning insane because the steps to own one should be just as insane. If a kid can find your gun, you failed. If you forget to put the safety on, you failed. If you have the bullets in the same place as the gun, you failed. But every gun owner in the NRA or gun advocate will keep saying there's nothing wrong with gun regulations? smh

gmporschenut also a fan of hondas > NJAnon
12/16/2014 at 01:11

A long time ago a history teacher went "laws are created when society feels that a group is unable to control themselves." At first there were few cars, then there were lots people speed, parked all over the place and soon laws had to be created to deal wit the issue. People didn't care about the environment, then they realized that companies didn't give a shit if it meant polluting a waterway, so laws were put in to stop that.

What boggles my mind is how (the two avid gun owners I know) don't see a problem. "any gun law will fail" So we shouldn't even try to improve the situation?

Axial > Kanaric
12/16/2014 at 02:00

That 30 round magazine is also the same military spec part on both guns.

pip bip - choose Corrour > TheD0k_2many toys 2little time
12/16/2014 at 03:34

i hope they win!

You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much > GhostZ
12/16/2014 at 11:20

The AR-15 makes an excellent hunting rifle. It is light, easy handling, very accurate and reliable. It is available in a lot of different chamberings and some are very effective on common game animals like deer, coyote, hogs, etc.

NJAnon > gmporschenut also a fan of hondas
12/16/2014 at 19:19

Exactly. Anyone thinking about it for a few minutes will obviously realize firearms are needed in some capacity. Our current way of life permits that. However, people that just sit in a room to think of solutions, and people PAID to think of solutions or a plan or something don't do anything.

Its sad that the only people doing a part is the journalists bringing deaths and multiple gun shootings to our attention everywhere. BTW, I have a question for any gun owner out there; do you all understand why people are frustrated at the idea of an object that insta-death? you do one action and the result can't be undone. Some of you will claim that you have dutifully cared for and been safe with your insta-death object, but I say you've just been using house money.