The **** you say...Beekeeper » 10 Sep 2024, 9:34 am » wrote: ↑ The settlement was based on the suit claiming the MARKETING was what was "faulty", NOT THE WEAPONS THEMSELVES!!
Sucks you get DICKSTOMPED AGAIN, huh, ****??
Blackvegetable » 10 Sep 2024, 9:51 am » wrote: ↑ The **** you say...
What was it about the marketing, Fondler?
Blackvegetable » 10 Sep 2024, 9:51 am » wrote: ↑The **** you say...Beekeeper » 10 Sep 2024, 9:34 am » wrote: ↑ The settlement was based on the suit claiming the MARKETING was what was "faulty", NOT THE WEAPONS THEMSELVES!!
Sucks you get DICKSTOMPED AGAIN, huh, ****??
What was it about the marketing, Fondler?
Where did you run off to DICKSUCKER??? @BlackvegetableBeekeeper » 10 Sep 2024, 9:55 am » wrote: ↑THE **** YOU SAY, DICKSUCKER!!Blackvegetable » 10 Sep 2024, 9:51 am » wrote: ↑ The **** you say...
What was it about the marketing, Fondler?
And I QUOTE....
"The settlement marks the first time a gunmaker has been held responsible for a mass shooting in the country. The plaintiffs’ lawyers took the unusual route of focusing not on Remington’s manufacturing of the gun used but on its marketing. While the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act grants firearms makers immunity from product liability, the plaintiffs argued that law did not apply. Instead, they focused on Remington’s “aggressive and violence-glorifying marketing” of its AR-15s as an unfair trade practice and a violation of Connecticut law. The legal strategy sought to uncover how Remington marketed the AR-15 to “young, violence-prone men.”
Now, you want to GO **** YOURSELF again, as I MASSIVELY CURB STOMPED YOUR ***!!! AGAIN!!
4 Insurers, 5 Policies to Pay $73M Sandy Hook Settlement Against Gunmaker Remington (insurancejournal.com)
And how do you believe this supports any case of yours, Fondler?Beekeeper » 10 Sep 2024, 9:55 am » wrote: ↑ THE **** YOU SAY, DICKSUCKER!!
And I QUOTE....
"The settlement marks the first time a gunmaker has been held responsible for a mass shooting in the country. The plaintiffs’ lawyers took the unusual route of focusing not on Remington’s manufacturing of the gun used but on its marketing. While the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act grants firearms makers immunity from product liability, the plaintiffs argued that law did not apply. Instead, they focused on Remington’s “aggressive and violence-glorifying marketing” of its AR-15s as an unfair trade practice and a violation of Connecticut law. The legal strategy sought to uncover how Remington marketed the AR-15 to “young, violence-prone men.”
Now, you want to GO **** YOURSELF again, as I MASSIVELY CURB STOMPED YOUR ***!!! AGAIN!!
4 Insurers, 5 Policies to Pay $73M Sandy Hook Settlement Against Gunmaker Remington (insurancejournal.com)
Beekeeper » 10 Sep 2024, 9:55 am » wrote: ↑ THE **** YOU SAY, DICKSUCKER!!
And I QUOTE....
"The settlement marks the first time a gunmaker has been held responsible for a mass shooting in the country. The plaintiffs’ lawyers took the unusual route of focusing not on Remington’s manufacturing of the gun used but on its marketing. While the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act grants firearms makers immunity from product liability, the plaintiffs argued that law did not apply. Instead, they focused on Remington’s “aggressive and violence-glorifying marketing” of its AR-15s as an unfair trade practice and a violation of Connecticut law. The legal strategy sought to uncover how Remington marketed the AR-15 to “young, violence-prone men.”
Now, you want to GO **** YOURSELF again, as I MASSIVELY CURB STOMPED YOUR ***!!! AGAIN!!
4 Insurers, 5 Policies to Pay $73M Sandy Hook Settlement Against Gunmaker Remington (insurancejournal.com)
*Huey+529 minutes ago
Blackvegetable » 10 Sep 2024, 10:31 am » wrote: ↑ And how do you believe this supports any case of yours, Fondler?
What is my claim, Fondler?Beekeeper » 10 Sep 2024, 11:45 am » wrote: ↑ It DOES NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES support your claim, DICKBREATH!!
Bet that must really blister your ***, huh??
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
JohnEdgarSlowHorses » 09 Sep 2024, 4:04 pm » wrote: ↑ When there are NO MORE GUNS, this will not happen
Blackvegetable » 10 Sep 2024, 9:07 am » wrote: ↑My bad....I thought you were referring to the tactical version that actually sells....*Huey » 10 Sep 2024, 8:29 am » wrote: ↑ The Ruger Mini 14 has the same internals as the Ruger mini tactical, ****.
You should have noticed by now any previous ban or proposed ban, state or federal, has to do with EXTERNAL features, not internal.I've tried to explain it to you, but you'll need to read about the reasons Insurance companies paid 75 million for Sandy Hook yourself.You should have noticed by now any previous ban or proposed ban, state or federal, has to do with EXTERNAL features, not internal.
How's ANOTHER CURB STOMPING WITH YOUR TONGUE IN A PILE OF PIG TURDS FEEL, DICKSUCKER???Blackvegetable » 10 Sep 2024, 11:46 am » wrote: ↑What is my claim, Fondler?Beekeeper » 10 Sep 2024, 11:45 am » wrote: ↑ It DOES NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES support your claim, DICKBREATH!!
Bet that must really blister your ***, huh??
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
What do you think the marketing is about?Beekeeper » 10 Sep 2024, 11:51 am » wrote: ↑
How's ANOTHER CURB STOMPING WITH YOUR TONGUE IN A PILE OF PIG TURDS FEEL, DICKSUCKER???
YOU claimed the settlement was for "external features". It wasn't as I VASTLY PROVED and you refuse to pay any attention to!!!
Now, go get your mommy to clean up your WRECKED *** and GO **** YOURSELF. Again!!
I don't keep a **** manual and there's nothing wrong with relying on a reference.DeezerShoove » 10 Sep 2024, 1:18 pm » wrote: ↑ What I said is absolutely true. Why is that a problem?
Do you have any real experience with the bang bangs?
You can't actually formulate an argument....Beekeeper » 10 Sep 2024, 12:52 pm » wrote: ↑ The LAWSUIT was NOTHING about the "external features" of the AR-15. It was TOTALLY about how and WHO Remington marketed the gun.
SUCKS you have NO **** CLUE what the hell you are talking about. Again.
**** OFF, DICKSUCKER. YOU GOT YOUR *** KICKED AGAIN AND KNOW IT. STOP trying to defend something that is INDEFENSIBLE AND WITHOUT MERIT!! I PROVED the reasoning behind the lawsuit. YOUR GOT YOUR *** CURB STOMPED!!
Now, GO THE **** AWAY. AGAIN!!
Looks like this is you admitting the reason they should be banned is based on APPEARANCE as opposed to FUNCTION.Blackvegetable » 10 Sep 2024, 1:46 pm » wrote: ↑ You can't actually formulate an argument....
What is marketed is the "warrior cosplay" delusion. It wouldn't work if they were selling a Ruger Mini-14 Ranch....it has to look TACTICAL
No...it is the reason Insurance companies paid 75 million for Sandy Hook.*Huey » 10 Sep 2024, 1:50 pm » wrote: ↑ Looks like this is you admitting the reason they should be banned is based on APPEARANCE as opposed to FUNCTION.