Adult Content Warning

This community may contain adult content that is not suitable for minors. By closing this dialog box or continuing to navigate this site, you certify that you are 18 years of age and consent to view adult content.

Elephants and Jackasses...

Discussion in 'Permanent Threads' started by Nettdata, Oct 14, 2016.

  1. wexton

    wexton
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    351
    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    3,239
    Location:
    North Coast BC
    So when someone drives someone over in a car when can sue Ford/Chevy/... now?
     
  2. scotchcrotch

    scotchcrotch
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    80
    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2009
    Messages:
    2,446
    Location:
    ATL
    That’s the precedent being set
     
  3. Kubla Kahn

    Kubla Kahn
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    710
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    11,278
    No. It isn't. There is an exception in the law that being challenged, the lawful commerce in arms act, that allows for cases against gun manufacturers if they market or sell it contrary to state and federal laws. The negligent entrustment angle was already tried and thrown out in this case because of the federal law (which is what you guys are talking about). This is about breaking the state law on advertising. There quite a lot of precedent for suing companies for all sorts of deceptive and irresponsible marketing/sales tactics. Cigarette companies is a prime example of multitudes of similar state and federal laws governing sales and marketing material for a known deadly product. What I gather Remington basically argued that states' laws can be so broad, and the federal exemption too vague, that it invalidates the entire purpose of the whole act in the first place. Utensil manufacturers aren't going to be sued for fat people's obesity. Now if they claimed their forks reduced your weight and they actually didn't, they can be sued and so on. I don't agree with it but you guys are misrepresenting the situation a bit.

    I don't agree with any of the arguments the anti gun groups are using in this case and one would hope a jury or eventually the SCOTUS wouldn't see any merit to their arguments that vague print advertisements pushed Adam Lanza to pester his mom to buy him the gun but we don't live in that rational world anymore. Like taxing ammo purchases excessively or burdensome licensing requirements having to be renewed ever year. It's all a ploy to hamper legal gun ownership by any means necessary outside of outright bans. "We aren't banning guns, no one is going to kick down your door in confiscating them!" "we're just implementing common sense safety regulations" which intended effect is people saying fuck it why bother taking up guns as an interest? If the Newton people win the case it'll open the floodgates to all manufactures advertising and drive more companies out of business, making it harder for your average citizen to exercise their second amendment rights. It's a twisted take on tort law and is the same tactics religious nuts use to weaken abortion rights.
     
  4. scotchcrotch

    scotchcrotch
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    80
    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2009
    Messages:
    2,446
    Location:
    ATL
    I’d love to hear one example of advertising the plaintiffs are claiming are “misleading”. Branding your weapons as “combative” is not misleading. It’s a desperate attempt to find merit in this lawsuit.
     
  5. Kubla Kahn

    Kubla Kahn
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    710
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    11,278
    The one getting the most press is a print add with the gun and the slogan “Consider your man card returned!” There is another that states along the lines of, “the enemy doesn’t stand a chance when you take them on single handedly with our rifle.” They are claiming they were promoting weapons specifically to lone wolf shooters like Lanza. For the rest they basically claim the adds sold them as weapons only the military should have. Ignoring the fact that even full auto versions the military use are legal, albeit with a tax stamp, for citizens to buy. You’d think it’d be a slam dunk case if it goes to trial but with a jury all bets are off.
     
  6. Juice

    Juice
    Expand Collapse
    Moderately Gender Fluid

    Reputation:
    1,382
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    13,397
    Location:
    Boston
    And plus, you know, the US military does not and almost never has used the AR-15 (aside from a brief contract with Arma-Lite in the 50s). The M-16 is very similar, but its not the same gun.
     
  7. scotchcrotch

    scotchcrotch
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    80
    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2009
    Messages:
    2,446
    Location:
    ATL
    Your last statement is so true.

    I don’t know if there’s a term for retaliatory juries, but there should be. I’ve heard of numerous cases where the business was 100% in the right yet lost because a jury felt bad for the plaintiffs. It’s complete bullshit.
     
  8. Jimmy James

    Jimmy James
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    240
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,169
    Location:
    Washington. The state.
    I think there should be something to be said about businesses doing everything they can to fuck over the little guy just because they have more resources to litigate. Being the resident commie around these parts, I have zero sympathy for massive corporations and asshole billionaires who stick their dicks in the asses of people like you and me every day. Maybe if these companies treated the people who give them money with anything resembling dignity, jurors would be less likely to rule against them idk.
     
  9. scotchcrotch

    scotchcrotch
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    80
    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2009
    Messages:
    2,446
    Location:
    ATL
    Unfortunately, that’s not usually the case. Small businesses are stuck in the middle and certainly don’t have infinite resources to drag out litigation.
     
  10. dixiebandit69

    dixiebandit69
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    824
    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2009
    Messages:
    4,181
    Location:
    The asshole of Texas
    Wait a minute, are you one of those people arguing that we shouldn't go to a single-payer system because all of those health insurance employees would lose their jobs?

    Because FUCK INSURANCE COMPANIES.

    "It's gambling at sucker's odds, and even when you win, they look for any excuse imaginable to not pay up." - Mr. Satanism
     
  11. Kampf Trinker

    Kampf Trinker
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    324
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,690
    Location:
    Minnesota
    This is like when people argue we can't scale back military spending because someone will lose their job. Or how we must never stop using coal because jobs. Mostly, health insurance companies guarantee a sizeable chunk of the population will go bankrupt every year. They also insure near maximum waste within the industry. I've really never heard an argument against single payer I'm sympathetic too though. Maybe the one about reducing government control in people's lives, but even that is usually loaded with death panel type conspiracy theory nonsense.
     
  12. Aetius

    Aetius
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    774
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    8,461
    I find it weird that people are worried about M4A causing them to lose their employer-sponsored insurance when there's already a ton of things that can make them lose their employer-sponsored insurance. Change jobs? Get laid off? Company gets acquired? Company just decides to go with a cheaper option? However much you like your current insurance, it's never more than one HR decision away from instantly changing into something completely different.
     
  13. Jimmy James

    Jimmy James
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    240
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,169
    Location:
    Washington. The state.
    I'm aware. That's why I said massive corporations and asshole billionaires.

    Those salaries are partly the reason why medical costs are high. Insurers, (health insurers in particular) are nothing but bloodsucking middlemen who do literally nothing but collect money and do everything in their power to not provide the benefits they sell. The money that would be saved by having single payer is worth the jobs of these people, sorry not sorry. Plus, the only thing keeping people in soul sucking jobs is their health insurance. Without that particular carrot, maybe employers might actually give workers a goddamn raise.
     
  14. Kubla Kahn

    Kubla Kahn
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    710
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    11,278
    Im not for single payer but "we can't change X because it provides jobs" is fucking retarded.
     
  15. Kampf Trinker

    Kampf Trinker
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    324
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,690
    Location:
    Minnesota
    The one that annoys me most is that health insurance lets you get "the plan you want/the plan that works for you." The plan that works "for you" and the one you want, or at least WILL want is the one that gets you treatment when you're fucking sick. Treating a guessing game as to which ailment or accident will befall you as a superior alternative is fucking stupid.
     
  16. Kampf Trinker

    Kampf Trinker
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    324
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,690
    Location:
    Minnesota
    It already has. Check the data. It's not even close. We pay way more than everyone else for way worse care. It's not a debate. No, really, it's not.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems_in_2000
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita

    #1 in costs per capita. #37 in results. Every country ahead of us has public healthcare. Even Costa Rica edges us out and they are dirt poor by comparison, and pay about 10% of what we do per capita on healthcare. That's fucking insane.

    How the fuck anyone can argue with a straight face that private insurance performs better is beyond me. You can argue around data sometimes, but not when the dispararities are this profound.

    How so? In what way? The reason they're broke in the first place is because of medical bills. Way more than any other issue or most issues combined. How does single payer make that problem worse???

    Warren and Sanders need to stop telling people they can have public healthcare while never coughing up so much as a single dime, but that's a separate discussion.
     
    #11756 Kampf Trinker, Nov 14, 2019
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2019
  17. dixiebandit69

    dixiebandit69
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    824
    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2009
    Messages:
    4,181
    Location:
    The asshole of Texas
    Okay, I've brought this point up many times before, and everyone just tap-dances around it/ ignores me:

    AREN'T THEY CHARGING TOO GODDAM MUCH FOR HEALTHCARE TO BEGIN WITH?

    Have you ever seen a hospital bill broken down and itemized? What they charge is absolutely ludicrous.
    But nobody is talking about that, they want to talk about how we can't afford good public healthcare, or how they would lose their doctor, or how these damn poor people are fucking everything up for them and raising their premiums.
    Oh, and insurance company employees losing their jobs. Can't forget those bottom-feeding scumbags.

    I'm a mechanic, and if I tried to charge you $200 for a part that cost $5, people would be calling the cops for price-gouging, or at the very least, I'd lose all of my business.

    I hear a bunch of people complaining that we can't afford a better system, but I think that if we just stopped OVER-FUCKING-PAYING FOR WHAT WE SHOULD ALREADY BE GETTING that it could sort itself out.

    But what do I know? I'm just a mechanic.

    Jesus H. Christ, sometimes I think I went into the wrong line of work, but I can't get cars/ machines out of my head...
     
  18. Kampf Trinker

    Kampf Trinker
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    324
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,690
    Location:
    Minnesota

    Well, for one when faced with the prospect of foreign competition in the pharmaceutical industry our congress is happy to step in and block it so they can keep overcharging. Credit goes to both democrats and republicans. The real problem though is that someone almost investigated Biden. Hang onto your seats, let's save America!
     
  19. shimmered

    shimmered
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    351
    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    4,469
    It’s super unfortunate that that’s all you draw from what’s going on.
     
  20. Kampf Trinker

    Kampf Trinker
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    324
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,690
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Just put me back on ignore. Thanks.