Visit
The parents of the victims of the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting may sue Remington Arms over the way the firearms company marketed its AR-15 style Bushmaster rifle, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. Can marketing be murder?
Right Angle with Scott Ott, Bill Whittle and Stephen Green comes to you four times each week thanks to funding from our Members who enjoy exclusive content (a weekly Backstage show), a Member-written blog and forum, and more. Join us now and find your people.
with your favorite podcast app.
14 replies on “Supreme Court: Parents of Sandy Hook May Sue Remington for AR-15 Marketing”
I think the purpose of this lawsuit, from the big political money/advocates behind it is to defacto repeal the 2nd Amendment. Ideal outcome, sure, you still have a right to own a gun. But there are no manufactures or retailers to sell it because the liability cost is way too high.
Steve, re the Left taking up these causes… It was Tipper Gore who led the charge to censor Heavy Metal music back in the 80s. And she wasn’t even an elected official but she was able to get the Senate involved in her crusade.
Rigt off the bat I gotta call BS on the idea that inclusion of the Bushmaster in video games is defacto marketing to children. Kids are NOT the primary consumer of video games (what 12yr old has a spare $65 to drop on the latest Call of Duty). It pisses me off that the powers that be just assume that that video games are a children’s pastime. That idea is as old as “23-Skedoo” (Yeah, I just watched “Love at First Bite”). #OKBoomer
-GenX
With the obviousness of the FBI report showing the causality between exposure and reoccurrence, why couldn’t this culpability be placed on the carriers of said data, the media news networks who, it could easily be seen, are, in effect, advertising and propagating the fame and notoriety of mass murder? Every advertisement requires a carrier of sorts, where is the moral culpability of these transgressors for profit?
Stick to the devil you know?
Consider this:
About 600 out of 14,000 homicides per year are committed using any kind of rifle. Around 8,000 of these homicides are committed using a handgun.
Now consider what would happen if 1000 men tried to resist the government armed with handguns.
Then, consider what would happen if 1000 men tried to resist the government armed with AK47 and AR15 semi-auto rifles.
So, is the governments desire to ban these rifles about protecting the public or protecting the government?
And what might these anti-gun politicians have in mind for our future that they are so worried about Americans owning these kinds of rifles?
Hey everybody, if Bill Whittle loses his channel on YT on December 10th, be prepared to jump over to his channel on Bitchute!
Be there or be Square:)
What is magical about Dec 10th? I watch Bill’s videos here and very little on YT so I am not sure what the timetable means.
They’ve changed their terms of service. On December 10th they’re going to start deleting accounts that are commercially non-viable. If they remove monetization from all BW videos then it’s a commercially non-viable channel as far as they’re concerned.
BW’s videos use the YouTube engine for streaming, which is the point of Milton’s comment. If YouTube blocks or deletes access to their videos, then a new streaming service may be required.
I’m a bit surprised that Scott hasn’t started embedding Bitchute here instread of YT. Though wouldn’t be surprised if Bitchute didn’t have that ability yet.
Great points, Steve and Scott!
Steve: if the Supreme Court had put a stop to this case, the issue would continue to fester and fester until the next case… (something to that effect). This was exactly what I was thinking, maybe we can run this case and have it be litigated and decided ‘once and for all’.
Scott: the Bill of Rights shouldn’t have been written down, specified (paraphrasing), because then lawyers/politicians/people can nibble around the edges of the issue/right and whittle it down to nothing…
Bill, you had good things to say, but they’ve been said many times before. What S&S said was new to me and made me think. (Plus, you were yawning during Scott’s wrap-up, your other work is nibbling away at your mental energies!)
. . . ‘Slimey little weasels?’ You are way too kind Scott.
But…but…Remington has a deep pocket. The missing fathers, inadequate mothers, and public education indoctrination do not have deep pockets. When you sue, you sue where the money is. Personal responsibility? In our age? No, not even a little bit. No matter what, it is always the fault of someone else and “they gotta pay!!!”.
Question: does the somebody else is at fault attitude and transfer of wealth fix anything? No but that is the point. If the problem were really fixed, you can’t blame anyone else nor can you sue the nearest deep pocket. So the problem rages on. Civilization gets ever closer to the edge of the abyss. Reason, reality, and logic fade ever further into the foggy distance.
Steve Dallas’ First Rule of Law: Never sue poor people.