Is This an End Run For the Second Ammendment????

a reply to: seagull

If the Day Ever Comes in the Country when Our 2nd Amendment Right is " Somehow " Revoked by Federal Government Officials then that Day Will be the First Day of the Second American Revolution . Blood Will Flow Freely into American Soil . I Hope that Day NEVER Comes.....

a reply to: alphabetaone

Who made 'em buy the cigs, and smoke 'em??

I smoked for the better part of 15 years, I don't recall being forced to do so. Certainly not by a tobacco company.

Personal responsibility is a thing...isn't it??

originally posted by: lakenheath24
a reply to: Gothmog

WTF has this got to do with the OP?

Did you notice this ?

That's how they work to a goal .

And using "stuff" like "WTF" is a sign of limited intellect .
You are not that .

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: alphabetaone

Who made 'em buy the cigs, and smoke 'em??

I smoked for the better part of 15 years, I don't recall being forced to do so. Certainly not by a tobacco company.

Personal responsibility is a thing...isn't it??

That's beside the point. It's not a matter of "forcing" someone to buy them nor smoke them, the lawsuits were litigated around the fraudulent claims of being safe and not harmful, when the big tobacco (not necessarily just cigarettes) companies knew well in advance and during their public facing comments that it just wasn't so.

If someone told me a vehicle was 100% safe when they knew 5 minutes out of the lot it would explode, i would sue them too.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: alphabetaone

The mother is dead, first victim.

Yep, that would definitely put a damper on litigation.

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Bigburgh
Why haven't the parents of Sandy Hook elementary school not sued the Feds for clearing Adam Lanza On the Background Check? Adam Lanza was already known to have mental illness.

Furthermore, why haven't they sued (or maybe they have and ive forgotten) Lanza's mother for leaving firearms around her son knowing full well his mental instability?

I mean......rifle safes are a thing lady! LOL

Completely agree.
Adam's mother was found shot to death at the house the same day as the school shooting. So she can't be sued. I'm sure most of the mothers estate went to where it was needed.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: lakenheath24


Tobacco Companies have been sued in the past by relatives of those who died from smoking. The can of worms was opened a long time ago.

There's a bit of a difference between a company knowing their product can kill their customer and not sharing that information, and another company telling people 'we make products that can kill people if you are not careful and do not obey firearm laws, regulations and codes of conduct.'

I feel sorry for the family members for their loss, but I also am disgusted by who they target to shill for money. Sandy Hook was a failure of the government and law enforcement, not the gun manufacturer.

a reply to: Bigburgh

I sure hope so.

In fact, just a little precaution on her part would have saved her, and some kids' lives.

I still can't in any good faith, find fault in the manufacturers of firearms. I mean, their product is literally.....death.

Remember when people got scared over flagpoles and plexiglass shields because people thought their president was taken away from them?

Wonder wha wold happen if they actually tried to take guns away. Bet some people would be crapping their pants then.

a reply to: alphabetaone

It was wrong?

Why was it wrong? Scientists knew as far back as 1939 that the burning of tobacco products produced benzopyrene, a carcinogen, yet big tobacco companies continued to flaunt their products as safe.

Whoa, haus!

The earliest reference to research on benzo(a)pyrene in cigarette smoke was in 1973 by the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) In 1939, we had just discovered sulfa drugs and antibiotics were developed for the first time. Benzopyrene was known back then, but not in cigarettes... it was found in coal tar and soot, and was responsible for carcinomas on chimney sweeps.

My very first cigarette was in 1970, a Camel unfiltered I stole from my Dad to try out. Made me sick as a dog! I still cannot smoke a Camel (of any type) without getting a headache. But I cannot remember a single time in my life where any tobacco company marketed their products as healthy. Cool, perhaps, enjoyable, certainly, but never healthy. It was common knowledge that smokers tended to cough more than non-smokers.

Can we at least stick to the facts on this subject? I have already been driven from most areas of society because of a simple addiction that is much less harmful than those which bring cries of sympathy from others. Crack heads get free crack pipes; IV drug users get free sterile needles; I get told to take a psychotropic drug that has a known side effect of suicide (aka Chantix). Anti-smokers now control almost every location in the USA, even private homes in some areas... and now I hear that tobacco companies had present-day medical technology back in 1939?

Might want to step off that nerve.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

A 1939 memorandum from the American Tobacco Company Research Director Hiram Hanmer noted, “We have been following Roffo's work for some time, and I feel that it is rather unfortunate that a statement such as his [implicating smoking in cancer] is widely disseminated” (30). A few years later, H.B. Parmele, a scientist working for the Lorillard Tobacco Company, wrote a report to the company's manufacturing committee observing that, “Certain scientists and medical authorities have claimed for many years that the use of tobacco contributes to cancer development in susceptible people. Just enough evidence has been presented to justify the possibility of such a presumption…benzpyrene is presumed to be a combustion product of burning tobacco and, by animal experiments, it has been shown to possess definite carcinogenic properties”

Reference material:

30 Hanmer HR, [No title]. American Tobacco Company, 11 May 1939. Bates Number: MNAT00637003.

If you have something which refutes it, I would love to see it

originally posted by: TheRedneck
But I cannot remember a single time in my life where any tobacco company marketed their products as healthy. Cool, perhaps, enjoyable, certainly, but never healthy.

I didnt say healthy, I said safe...and that was what they were telling people.

a reply to: alphabetaone

I spent some time looking up when benzopyrene (technically benzo(a)pyrene) was discovered or was deemed a carcinogen. It is interesting that the page you linked never came up.

I am not going to try and refute the fact that benzo(a)pyrene can be a carcinogen; it can. My concern was the date. Science was not nearly as advanced in 1939, and I believe your link embellishes when such a discovery was made. What I did find was this Wiki entry for benzopyrene:

Benzopyrenes are harmful because they form carcinogenic and mutagenic metabolites (such as (+)-benzo[a]pyrene-7,8-dihydrodiol-9,10-epoxide from benzo[a]pyrene) which intercalate into DNA, interfering with transcription. They are considered pollutants and carcinogens.

The entry for benzo(a)pyrene:

In the 18th century, young British chimney sweeps who climbed into chimneys suffered from chimney sweeps' carcinoma, a scrotal cancer peculiar to their profession, and this was connected to the effects of soot in 1775, in the first work of occupational cancer epidemiology and also the first connection of any chemical mixture to cancer formation. Frequent skin cancers were noted among fuel industry workers in the 19th century. In 1933, BaP was determined to be the compound responsible for these cases, and its carcinogenicity was demonstrated when skin tumors occurred in laboratory animals repeatedly painted with coal tar. BaP has since been identified as a prime carcinogen in cigarette smoke.

That establishes the discovery of benzo(a)pyrene as a carcinogen in or around 1933 in coal soot. I find it incredulous that a mere six years later, it was already identified in cigarette smoke and this information was peer reviewed and scientifically accepted. That's some pretty quick scientific discovery from a time when antibiotics were this amazing new invention.

If you want to claim that the effects were well-known in the late 1950s, then I would have to acquiesce to that point. 1939 seems a bit ambitious, however, and it actually makes me believe your link is taking a bit of liberty with the actual facts. Concern over a single scientific paper is actually a reasonable response, as it is completely possible for scientific papers to be wrong and even biased (as we have seen quite frequently as of late). However, those same scientific papers can be used to great effect in advertising, even when wrong or biased (as we have seen quite frequently as of late).

Science does not suddenly proclaim, "OMG! Look what we found!" Initial works are reproduced, expanded upon, peer reviewed, and scrutinized over time before any discovery is considered scientifically accurate. Promotion of one theory over another prematurely actually hinders this process.

I didnt say healthy, I said safe...and that was what they were telling people.

Very well. I don't remember anyone claiming that tobacco was safe back then either. Your link actually mentions that one of the "great sins" made by tobacco companies back when was to introduce cigarettes with milder/smoother tobacco. As though every manufacturer on earth isn't trying to make their products more attractive to the consumer. But, I suppose, when people have been so accustomed to hating tobacco users for so long, it is easy to show them how evil a company was for doing the exact same thing every other company does.

And, to get back to the thread topic, I can see where in 30 years, 40 years (assuming we still exist then) people will look back on similar links about how early on Remington knew that people were using their guns in commission of crimes, and how it is obvious that Remington was abetting this activity by making their guns easier to use and more accurate. The fiends!

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck

It is interesting that the page you linked never came up.

Not so interesting to me, as it loads every time. Perhaps your ISP or it's DNS blocks the domain, but i use OC128 so....i have no issues.

originally posted by: TheRedneck

Very well. I don't remember anyone claiming that tobacco was safe back then either.

Why are you being intentionally obtuse? Again, i didn't say tobacco companies lauded the safety of tobacco back in 1939, what I said was that tobacco companies knew about the dangers since 1939.

originally posted by: TheRedneck

But, I suppose, when people have been so accustomed to hating tobacco users for so long, it is easy to show them how evil a company was for doing the exact same thing every other company does.

I'm a smoker, where do i fit into that equation?

originally posted by: TheRedneck

And, to get back to the thread topic, I can see where in 30 years, 40 years (assuming we still exist then) people will look back on similar links about how early on Remington knew that people were using their guns in commission of crimes, and how it is obvious that Remington was abetting this activity by making their guns easier to use and more accurate. The fiends!

Which comes back to my original premise, Remington nor any other firearms manufacturer has claimed that their product is anything but lethal.

Meanwhile tobacco companies HAVE touted their product as being safe perpetuating fraud to the consumer. Hence the litigation.

Stop being obstinate for the sake of being obstinate

a reply to: alphabetaone

Not so interesting to me, as it loads every time. Perhaps your ISP or it's DNS blocks the domain, but i use OC128 so....i have no issues.

In any case, I simply have trouble believing that there was any substantial information on benzopyrenes in cigarette smoke and cancer that far back. Suspicions, sure, I would be surprised if there weren't. But there's a big difference between suspicions and accepted conclusions.

Why are you being intentionally obtuse? Again, i didn't say tobacco companies lauded the safety of tobacco back in 1939, what I said was that tobacco companies knew about the dangers since 1939.

Didn't you just say this:

originally posted by: alphabetaone
a reply to: TheRedneck

I didnt say healthy, I said safe...and that was what they were telling people.

I responded that I didn't remember tobacco being called "safe" either. "Healthy" was my own mistranslation of your intent, but the same argument still applies.

I'm a smoker, where do i fit into that equation?

You tell me. I believe in absolute freedom wherever possible, and that means the ability to have a relaxing smoke when I want. I'm not sure what you believe in that vein; it is not my place to speak for you. You are quite able to do so yourself, and even eloquently at times.

I feel the tobacco companies, while perhaps at partial fault through their advertising, were simply attempting to produce a desired product for a market. I see no reason for that to be demonized, and especially not for it to be subject to lawsuits in itself. The fact is that no tobacco company ever shoved a cigarette in my mouth and lit is, while inflating and deflating my lungs; I made a decision to smoke, knowing even at that time that there might be health risks, and thus the blame and responsibility for that decision falls on my shoulders.

I even quit purchasing form the tobacco companies when they

• started threatening to put rings of carpet glue in the papers so I could inhale those noxious fumes while I smoked, and
  
  
• raised the price so much that a carton of cigarettes went from a minor cost to an extravagance.

I now smoke home-rolled cigarettes. I will not touch those cancer sticks in the stores. I also recommend anyone who smokes investigate that possibility. So I'm certainly not a proponent for tobacco companies; I simply think what was done to them was wrong at a basic level.

Which comes back to my original premise, Remington nor any other firearms manufacturer has claimed that their product is anything but lethal.

Meanwhile tobacco companies HAVE touted their product as being safe perpetuating fraud to the consumer. Hence the litigation.

Can you guarantee a jury will consider that difference as substantial? Remember that a typical jury in the USA is composed of 12 individuals, none of whom was smart enough to get out of jury duty.

Whether or not that legal theory will stand will depend on public perception more than legal technicalities... and at present, public perception is being manipulated into holding gun manufacturers accountable for producing a desired product. Remington's solution will add fuel to that fire.

Stop being obstinate for the sake of being obstinate

I'll point out that you just now again stated that tobacco companies presented their product as "safe," despite calling me out above for thinking you said that (which you did). That's not obstinate... that's a response to a statement.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: lakenheath24
Remington just paid out $73 million to settle the Sandy Hook lawsuit. The defense used a new angle to the lawsuit in that they attacked Remington for advertising their weapons as a military style thing, which allegedly influenced the user to shoot up the skool.


www.independent.co.uk...


So reading this is kinda scary TBH on a bunch of angles. It opens up a whole can of worms.

So can Ford be sued when someone dies from speeding in a Mustang cuz the car is advertised as a Sports Car to go faster than the speed limit?

If we are going with the Marketing angle, then every single product on earth is susceptible to lawsuits, not due to any defect, but due to someone misusing a product.

So if someone kills someone with a Stanley knife, does Stanley get sued? If someone is skiing and hits a tree, does Rosignol get sued???

What about Busweiser....do they get sued if someone drinks and drives and kills someone?????

This is the Pandora's box this lawsuit has opened as it will set precedent now.

This will be a death knell for the 2nd amendment by way killing manufacturers.

Yes. This is the newest vector of attack. The are setting the stage for the discussion to turn towards mandatory gun insurance. This gives them a court victory that can back that point up. Want to own "dangerous assault weapons" well then you should have to pay an insurance premium each year or month on each one. The fund will go to any victims of gun violence that have a claim.

They will equate it to car insurance and health insurance (think premiums for smoking) to show that we already require these types of things on the population.

It is a devious and well constructed new vector of attack. The population at large will be fine with such a simple tax if it is packaged in such a way. After all most people only have a small amount of guns. This will crush collectors or people who just pick one up every year or two.

Eventually the insurance premium will grow to some price point that will basically price out the normal citizen from having more than 1 gun. Then they will start putting these same premiums on magazines that have more than x many rounds.

This plan will absolutely destroy the 2nd amendment without even directly interfering with it. Now it just depends on the guaranteed supreme court decision on it.

Also do not think for a second that Remington was not either in on or aware of this potential chain of events. I would not be surprised if the biden admin hadn't already agreed behind closed doors to give them a defense contract to purchase far more in guns than they spent on the settlement. The whole point of the settlement is to have a legal victory that is large scale to point towards while pushing this. Remington gave them exactly that.

These people are rabid communists and they are basically pushing these policy shifts in the open now.

originally posted by: TheRedneck

I feel the tobacco companies, while perhaps at partial fault through their advertising,

I never argued that, simply that there's a difference between marketing with a false premise, and marketing with an honest premise. The comparison between big tobacco and firearms manufactures span the chasm of the moon and the sun.

originally posted by: TheRedneck

were simply attempting to produce a desired product for a market.

So do crack dealers.
So do opiate dealers.

I mean, do we allow that? Do we keep it illegal? I have my own thoughts on that one, but at the moment it's illegal.

originally posted by: TheRedneck

I will not touch those cancer sticks in the stores. I also recommend anyone who smokes investigate that possibility. So I'm certainly not a proponent for tobacco companies; I simply think what was done to them was wrong at a basic level.

Sometimes i slip, but its good advice. I vape. I get the requisite nicotine i need that way. Either way we KNOW we're killing ourselves.

originally posted by: TheRedneck

Can you guarantee a jury will consider that difference as substantial?

Of course not. Can you guarantee they wont consider that difference as substantial? Im sure neither one of us can.

originally posted by: TheRedneck

Whether or not that legal theory will stand will depend on public perception more than legal technicalities... and at present, public perception is being manipulated into holding gun manufacturers accountable for producing a desired product. Remington's solution will add fuel to that fire.

This i DO agree with. Firearms are being framed as the "bad guy" (much sarcasm here) and capable of killing lots of people. Well duhhhhhhhhhhhhh, that's literally the product that they advertise.... death and stopping power. The firearms companies NOR the firearms themselves are to blame here. People are effin to blame. Period. Full Stop. Fin. Anyone who claims differently should actually be exiled to some firearms-free island where they can all hunt with palm leaves.

Trying to figure out something(s) to recycle all of those used and unused masks into; As I am sure there are quite a few people invested up to their armpits in them would be of benefit.

As far as Amendments go why was the second amendment enacted in the first place?(rhetorical) Before "we" were Independent of the British crown and it's rule just colonists back then... they wanted to disarm the colonists so there wouldn't be an uprising against their rule and become independent and well wanting to disarm the colonists the second amendment was born removing any authority Britain or anyone else thought they may have had to disarm the colonists failing to disarm the colonists.

So it's a VERY old pre United States thing... now that there is a military and armed militia otherwise known as police and National Guard(Army core) citizens protecting themselves from foreign threats like the British etc. is kind of redundant and many have thought it a good idea to keep them and try to stand united against the very government that allows the arms... as DUMB as that sounds, but anyway.

If we look at the British and their removal of them of their populous; the police came next... swat however keep their there just to deal with the foreign trafficking of them into Britain and across their borders. Some people seeing how disarmament worked for other countries in such a manner have decided doing the same here in the US would be a good idea.

Anyone that lives near the woods where "hunting" is the excuse to shoot people on their own land and claim stray bullet or other accident has been a problem and one that has only been growing as time has marched on. Of course those going with a high powered gun in the woods taking aim at someone they don't like for whatever reason does all actual valid hunters a dis-service as it will only promote the removal or disarmament of them... no different than what the other or same side of the aisle claims that they want to keep them for... and people want to speak of "terrorism" nothing worse than hearing those things and finding the bullet so close to so many residential properties and even on mine less than five feet from my door... steel hollow points and .22 calibers.

Of course there's a special place in hell for idiots and lunatics but that's another thread altogether.

originally posted by: Crowfoot

So it's a VERY old pre United States thing... now that there is a military and armed militia otherwise known as police and National Guard(Army core) citizens protecting themselves from foreign threats like the British etc. is kind of redundant and many have thought it a good idea to keep them and try to stand united against the very government that allows the arms... as DUMB as that sounds, but anyway.

So at what point is it that we say "phew!!! Finally, Every member of Congress and politician is truthful, and they are now finally doing nothing but looking out for our best interest!!!!! I couldnt wait for this day to come!" ?

I feel confident that the reasons for keeping the people armed far outweighs the reasons for not.

But yea, i guess you're right, there are no corrupt cops, not maniac cops, the military certainly cant ever be used against it's own people (which we came damned close to not too long ago).... so yea, screw it, im giving up my firearms starting today.

a reply to: Gothmog


The thread devolved into cigarettes. Twas a tad disappointing. Not directed at you personally.

a reply to: Imperator2


Its devious. I hope this isnt the case, but we will see. The insurance thing could be a killer. Especially if tied to home insurance. It will cause a lot of guns to "disappear" IMO.