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

a reply to: alphabetaone

I never argued that, simply that there's a difference between marketing with a false premise, and marketing with an honest premise.

I disagree.

I feel the tobacco companies were perhaps in a bit of denial as information came out, but that is a common thing. Science is never "settled," as much as some would like to think it is. NIcotine does actually have some physiological advantages; it's just that, for most people, the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. None of us know what was going through the minds of tobacco company executives as information came out. Maybe, as has been presented to the public, they were little versions of Igor hell-bent on the destruction of humanity, hiding in a dungeon somewhere cackling evilly, but I don't think so. I think they were simply trying to make a profit producing a product that was in high demand, like anyone else would do.

One major flaw in that reasoning is I see people trying to apply present-day knowledge to yesterday's situation. That never works.

So do crack dealers.
So do opiate dealers.

Crack is illegal.
Opiates are illegal.
Tobacco is not illegal, and even if it is made illegal, it was not so during the time period we are discussing.

Sometimes i slip, but its good advice. I vape. I get the requisite nicotine i need that way.

And I have no problem with you vaping. I've tried it (comes in handy when in the hospital, as some of the smaller disposable units look similar to ink pens and can be hidden), but I prefer a good, old-fashioned cigarette.

Either way we KNOW we're killing ourselves.

I don't know that. I know that smoking lessens the pain from stomach issues I have, and I know (from doctors, no less) that smoking was not the primary factor in my heart issues... that was cholesterol. I sincerely hope no one outlaws food over that or tries to sue food producers after I pass on.

You may laugh at that, but is that really much different from what we're discussing?

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

Of course not.

But, given today's political climate, which would you consider more likely?

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.

I completely agree with this.

However, freedom is a funny thing. One cannot have freedom for oneself without allowing freedom for everyone else. Sure, the litigation against tobacco companies may seem OK to you, but it is a legal precedent for things that might not seem OK to you.

I can make the same argument against most things that are outlawed... here in Alabama, gambling is illegal. For most of my life there has been an ongoing debate about whether or not the people should be allowed to even vote on the issue. We cannot even have a state lottery to benefit the schools here! And yet, people continue to play the lottery, sending Alabama dollars to Tennessee, Georgia, Mississippi, and Florida. I don't gamble myself (outside a friendly poker game among friends from time to time), but I see no reason to make it illegal. The concept of freedom for all means that I have to allow others to participate in their vices if I wish to participate in mine.

Will some idiot bet the family farm and lose their shirt if gambling is made legal? Probably... but that is freedom. Most won't. It is a victimless crime.

Firearms should be legal. I depend on them, as there are critters out here (including the two legged kind occasionally) that can do me and mine harm. Tobacco should be legal. I enjoy smoking and I plan to continue smoking until the day I die (and even if I were to make it to 120 years, some fool would go "Think of how long he might have lived if he quit smoking"), because I want to. Gambling should be legal. If, for some unknown reason, I decide to gamble, I should be able to.

But moreso, if any of those things must be illegal, then MAKE THEM ILLEGAL! This action against Remington is a blatant attempt to make firearms illegal without actually making them illegal. That is a sneaky, underhanded way to do things, be the target tobacco, firearms, gambling, certain foods, or anything else. But... we let it happen with tobacco companies, and now the firearms companies' turn has come. Who will be next?

TheRedneck

Remington didn't settle their insurance company settled. All of Remington's assets have been bought by other companies. It wouldn't surprise me if the Company who bought the "Remington" brand didn't kick in some money for the settlement.

Personally I think that the lawsuit is bogus and should have never been allowed. I design industrial machinery for a living. Several years ago an operator had an accident on a machine that I helped design. The insurance company that covered his medical costs sued the Company that he worked for and my Company. It was found that the operator had removed two guards and disabled two interlock switches so that he could get more cycles per hour to get a production bonus. Any one of the guards or switches would have prevented the accident. Our insurance company settled out of Court because they didn't want to take a chance on a Jury.

a reply to: lakenheath24

I'll take partial responsibility for that. But really, can the two issues e separated? It's identical tactics, applied to firearms instead of tobacco. It's the tactic, not just one firearms manufacturer being sued, that is the issue.

TheRedneck

a reply to: alphabetaone

I dont care if you have them or any one else... just too much of a stupid headache to deal with and if you're known to have such a thing the people you mention are way more likely to shoot first and ask questions later being sanctioned to use them in the protection and defense of others and self than someone else is.

Notice the difference? They are sanctioned to use it to defend others and self by state law and federal law... no one else really is covered in such a manner.

An old roommate loved the second guns out the wazoo all licensed range tested etc being an armed security guard for hire... but the main complaint roommate had was all the hoops to have them keep them and bare them legally when so many don't or haven't been through those legal hoops.

All I could do was smile knowing all of that legal or not legal was more trouble than not having any at all... like yay another mouth to feed called gun ownership no thanks.