Motley Fool asks 'Should S&W be worried after Remington $73 million settlement'

I dunno.
Some articles allow you to comment on them and some don't. But even if they allow comments how many people read them. Goodness how many people read past just the inflammatory headline?

I read the comments to articles a lot but many times the comment section just breaks down to two people hurling insults at each other on the order of 'No, you are,' then 'No, YOU are,' then 'No, YOU are a MILLION times.'

We all should thank the mods on this site for preventing such nonsense.
 
How can legitimate gun owners fight the major media bias?
Click to expand...

the only way I know is to recognize their lies and distortions, point them out with the actual facts and stick to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth on our side.

Now, this will not be as effective as their lies, but what else can we do and remain honest??

Sandy Hook families settle with Remington, marking 1st time gun-maker held liable for mass shooting
Click to expand...

For example, just look at the distortions and inaccuracy in the this title...

TO begin with, NO ONE was "held responsible".
Second, the suit was not about the mass shooting, it was about the marketing (advertisements) used and the claim that influenced the mass shooter. NOTHING WAS PROVEN the parties involved AGREED to a settlement and that settlement did NOT assess guilt or responsibility.

Another point is that Remington ceased to exist a couple years ago, so could not agree to anything today. The people who settled with the Sandy Hook families were not Remington, they were the lawyers of the company that insured Remington, doing what they felt best for their client, the insurance company, NOT Remington.

Twenty first graders and six staff members were killed in the 2012 massacre.
Click to expand...

was there even any mention of the fact that the killer MURDERED HIS OWN MOTHER, (stealing the rifle) before going to the school? That "minor detail" is usully ignored or glossed over when the anti's talk about the shooting...

The mother is dead. The Killer is dead. The victims are dead, the families felt they had to sue somebody, and sued the seller of the rifle and the maker.

THEY DID NOT WIN. They settled out of court.

Media headlines and articles imlying it was a win are worth less than dung, which can be used as fertilizer, where dishonest news can't...
 
Fighting propaganda is difficult because those who produce it are in control of the communication mechanism.

Look how social media decides who has anything to say. If 44AMP were to post his analysis on Facebook or Twitter it would be on less than 24 hours., maybe even less. Even if he got on Fox, how much would that influence the country? At one time -maybe still- Fox was #1 among the cable news media - Fox-CNN-MSNBC-CNBC. On an INDIVIDUAL basis. Add the latter three together and the total viewing population beat Fox. Now add CBS, NBC, ABC, which are NOT cable but are the major networks historically in the majority of homes every night at news time, 6 p.m. and 11 p.m.

When the revolution finally occurs (assuming they WON'T get the guns), those who never watch Fox or Newsmax will wonder what the hell is going on.
 
TO begin with, NO ONE was "held responsible".
Second, the suit was not about the mass shooting, it was about the marketing (advertisements) used and the claim that influenced the mass shooter. NOTHING WAS PROVEN the parties involved AGREED to a settlement and that settlement did NOT assess guilt or responsibility.
Click to expand...

To be fair the headline said held liable not responsible . I believe there is a legal difference not that the media cares haha .
 
MetalGod said:
To be fair the headline said held liable not responsible.
I believe there is a legal difference not that the media cares haha .
Click to expand...
Perception (manufactured/public) is everything in the game currently afoot.
Adding to that... Never underestimate the tide of emotion's onslaught to erode one's supporting structure.
Emotion & perception if left unchecked, eventually wind up as Law.

To borrow a phrase....
"Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence
of external reality is to be tacitly denied by their philosophy.
The heresy of heresies was common sense.”

.
 
Last edited:
Was that really the add that is in question ? Does anyone know the questions they asked to get your "man card" ?

That first part of the add simply does not rise to anywhere near a liable offense IMHO . I'm a strong believer in the intent of your words/adds mean much more then how someone takes it/them .

I've always thought if someone goes to the darkest possible meaning or place a comment or add "could" go without the add or the wording actually going anywhere near there . Say more about the mind of the person reading the add then the add it self .

I'm seeing this general point more and more in society where many seem to look for the worst in a statement rather then any other possible meaning . I'd really like to know what the questions were to get the "man card" .

Lets play a game ? What are some questions in a man card promotion that would make the company/manufacture liable either criminally or civilly for anything a purchaser would have done ?

First off wouldn't what ever the "criminal" did need to be pretty much the same as what was advertised ? "Do you like going hog wild shooting at things" does not mean you want to shoot up a school . Again what possible questions could they have asked that any reasonable person would conclude they were promoting extreme violence on innocent humans ?

I'll say it again , maybe it's your brain going to deep dark places the advertiser had no intention on going .
 
The PLCAA allows lawsuits for cases "in which a manufacturer or seller of a firearm knowingly violated a state or federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the firearm and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought;
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top