Bushmaster Under the Gun for Military-Style Marketing

Bushmaster ad (courtesy nytimes.com)

“More than 14 months after victims’ families sued Bushmaster Firearms in the aftermath of the mass shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, the lawsuit is finally approaching the first critical test of a novel liability claim,” thetrace.org reports. “Whether or not the riflemaker can be held responsible for the Sandy Hook massacre because of how it has marketed a military-style weapon to civilians.” Specifically, militarily . . .

. . . the Newtown plaintiffs seek to use the industry’s marketing tactics against it.

Those tactics, never tested before under PLCAA [Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act], dominate the allegations spelled out in the plaintiffs’ complaint. It quotes several advertisements from a catalog aimed at civilian gun buyers that is adorned with action photos of camouflage-clad soldiers and police in body armor. One reads, “Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered.” Other images tout the rifle’s “military-proven performance” and call it “the ultimate combat weapons system.”

With that type of marketing, the Sandy Hook families claim, “The Bushmaster Defendants attract buyers by extolling the militaristic and assaultive qualities of their AR-15 rifles.” The complaint alleges that while the weapon is suitable for the military and for law enforcement — where it’s used for combat and limited police purposes — in civilian hands, the high-caliber, rapid-fire rifles are essentially killing machines.

Sounds like a stretch to me. The PLCAA shields gunmakers from liability when someone uses one of their firearms unlawfully. Period. Which is why the litigants are coming at this one sideways.

[The lawsuit] cites the marketing as a violation of Connecticut’s unfair trade practices act, which regulates irresponsible advertising. The advertising is deceptive and a violation of that state law, the plaintiffs argue, because it uses military imagery to entice the wrong sorts of consumers — civilians — to buy the product and then harm others with it.

If that’s their argument — Bushmaster’s advertising attracts customers to buy their rifles, which they shouldn’t do because they’re “killing machines” — that ain’t gonna fly. Bushmaster’s products are legal. The purchases are legal. Deal.

If the lawsuit claimed the marketing attracts psycho killers, well, that wouldn’t fly either. Lest we forget, Mrs. Lanza bought the rifle used at Sandy Hook (son Adam shot her in the head and assumed possession).

As far as the ads being deceptive, the accusers would have to prove that the Bushmaster ACR doesn’t make the opposition bow down. I don’t think they want to go there.

We’ll know what the court thinks in four days, when a Connecticut judge rules on Bushmaster’s motion to dismiss. While I expect that the judge will grant Remington Outdoors’ motion, this case could have a chilling effect on the mucho macho military style advertising used by some rifle makers to sell their products.

Or not. Watch this space.

comments

  1. avatar James in AZ says:

    What’s wrong with killing machines?

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      I think you may be confused. Unless the machine is a Terminator that has time traveled here from the future you can destroy a machine, but you cannot kill it.

    2. avatar Jeremy S. says:

      What’s wrong to me is that these groups and these people are constantly calling AR-15 rifles “weapons of war” and “assault rifles” and “killing machines” and “military-style” etc etc to try and convince the American public that this is the case. But apparently when Bushmaster advertises its rifle as “military-proven” and a “combat weapons system” it’s deceptive advertising? Stick to your story, antis! Are these military weapons or aren’t they? Seems like they should either be saying, “see, Bushmaster agrees with us” or conceding that these aren’t really “weapons of war” after all.

      1. avatar gs650g says:

        With their logic cops are actually soldiers

      2. avatar WedelJ says:

        Classic circular logic. Honestly, it’s their best tool because it’s so confusing and easy to use.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Confusing, very much. In the midst of a discussion, you suddenly discover that your counterpart is both a moron and insane. VERY confusing.

      3. OMG!!! Maybe we should stop using the term “mil-spec”!

      4. avatar Ing says:

        And if they are solely weapons of war and good only for spraying bullets at innocent people, why do we let police carry them?

      5. avatar int19h says:

        They’re not saying that it is deceptive advertising. On the contrary, they’re saying that this advertising proves that ARs are “killing machines”, and therefore selling them to civilians is negligent.

    3. avatar Hannibal says:

      I dunno. It’s how I get a good portion of my food, for one thing.

    4. avatar Ragnar says:

      So, if you believe that the Militia Act of 1903 defines both an Organized Militia (aka, National Guard) and a Reserve Militia (consisting of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who is not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia), than it stands to reason that most men should not only be permitted, but encouraged to own military weapons. Especially when applying the SCOTUS ruling below…

      U.S. Supreme Court (1997): In Miller, we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen’s right to possess a sawed off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be “ordinary military equipment” that could “contribute to the common defense.” Id., at 178.

      Bushmaster not only is correctly marketing their product, but they are displaying a considerable amount of patriotism in ensuring that the relevant purpose of their products are being highlighted. Now if we could just get the actual military weapons into the hands of our citizens, for the common defense, instead of “military-style” weapons.

      1. avatar Binder says:

        Have to love court decisions regarding firearms. Is the court informing the military that they need to start using rifles and shotguns that are of “legal” civilian length?

      2. avatar hellofromillinois says:

        Those who argue the 2nd Amendment should only apply to militia service forget that when the Constitution was written, virtually every free adult male was required to keep a serviceable musket or fowling piece (rifles allowed in some places) and a store of ammunition and other relevant “military style” weapons on hand for militia service. I would totally be open to getting rid of our standing army in favor of our original militia service if the government was still required to raise an army for aggressive action. Imagine how fewer needless wars we might be engaged in and how much more tax dollars could go to actually taking care of our own country.

  2. avatar FormerWaterWalker says:

    Sure makes the death of the greatest Supreme justice even more tragic(especially since Bury Soetoro plans an epic diss by not attending his funeral). No ultimate arbitrator worth a damn but an old commie named Ginsburg…

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      Wrong way to look at it. I’d hope no one would allow that POS in my funeral.

      1. avatar FormerWaterWalker says:

        NO it is not the wrong way to look at it. Bury Soetoro is STILL president(oh how I hate to type that)…my guy Ted Cruz will be there. And not playing golf. Hell I vividly remember JFK’s endless funeral-you just don’t commit this SIN.

      2. avatar John L. says:

        Like it or not, Mr. Obama is currently President.

        The actions of the President reflect upon the Presidency itself as well as the individual holding the office. (The flip side of the “respect the office if not the man” if you will.) As such, things like bowing to foreign powers, or not attending state functions such as, oh, a Supreme Court Justice’s funeral, tarnish the office as well as the individual currently occupying it.

        Unfortunately this is just another in a string of these events and neglects.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          “Like it or not”

          Not.

  3. avatar Smith says:

    High caliber my ass. I know it’s a detail, but seriously guys. Get it right!

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      Compared to a .9mm the 5.56 is an exceptionally high caliber.

      1. avatar Clay says:

        9mm is a .357 CALIBER. 5.56mm is .218 CALIBER so NO 5.56 it isn’t a “high” caliber. It’s a LOWER or smaller caliber.

        1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

          “.9mm”

          Look up – there is a joke going over your head.

        2. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

          (Psssst, hey Clay, you missed it. .9mm. Not 9mm)

        3. avatar Joe says:

          .355, .223

        4. avatar Accur81 says:

          5.56 is .224 caliber. I think we all agree that the .223 Rem / 5.56 NATO is a pipsqueak among centerfire rifle calibers.

        5. avatar anonymoose says:

          I don’t know where you got that .218 number. 5.56x45mm NATO, 5.7x28mm, and .22 Hornet are actually .224 caliber, 5.45×39 is .220 caliber, and .22 LR is .223 caliber. There is an old cartridge called .218 Bee, which also used .224 caliber boolits.

        6. avatar LarryinTX says:

          It’s sort of an inside joke.

      2. avatar alex says:

        Technically if I remember correctly the 9mm is .349 and therefore a higher caliber than .223. However there is considerably more energy carried in a 223. Or if you prefer 9mm is larger than 5.56. But your statement was specifically relative to caliber which is simply the cross sectional dimension of the projectile. And means absolutely nothing in the context. After all a380 is in fact a 9mm also

        1. avatar RatInDaHat says:

          you missed the joke. “.9mm”, specifically the “.”

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Yeah, and .9 mm would be .0349. Which is smaller than .223. Do you get it now?

      3. avatar alex says:

        I stand corrected it is in fact the barrel bore that is .349. The bullet is in fact .355

        1. avatar alex says:

          Totally missed the decimal in his comment. I reckon the jokes right here.lol

    2. avatar CentralIL says:

      I love when they use that term in reference to ARs. It makes it easy to demonstrate their complete ignorance of the subject at hand.

    3. avatar Steve says:

      Um…they were quoting the press release (or whatever it was)

  4. avatar D-Fens says:

    Will the Newtown plaintiffs please produce a list of approved guns for mass shootings.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      And government sanctioned advertising for same.

      1. avatar pod says:

        A furtherance of the AWB was supposed to have restrictions on how gun manufacturers advertised their products. A government “monitor” would have been responsible for approving ads and assessing penalties to those who violated the statutes.

    2. avatar HP says:

      Well, you know, somehow the victims would have been less dead had they been shot with a handgun or shotgun. Or even something less scary, like a Ruger Mini 14. But that black rifle – man, that will kill you double evil dead.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Imagine if they made one in .45! Oh, wait …

  5. avatar AndyVA says:

    Conneticut judge dismiss? Prepare to soil your own pants – it was for the children that Mr. Camel went the way of the do do – enticing kids to smoke you see…back to the subject… im sure our totally impartial non-activist judge from the d-bag NE will dismiss; wait unless he won’t, really this IS my shocked face…

  6. avatar Mark N. says:

    Wait, let me get this straight–it is unfair or deceptive advertising to sell a perfectly legal firearm to civilians because they shouldn’t be allowed to buy them in the first place. Hmmm. And because their advertising encourages those evil=, unstable civilians to engage in mass shootings. Okay, I have a little bit of an issue with causation of the theory, aside from the fact that the Newtown shooter was not the buyer and therefore not persuaded by its advertising. I also seem to recall that he had gone to buy a shot gun, but was dissuaded by the waiting period.

    1. avatar Wv cycling says:

      Totally suing Nissan and Honda because my cars can’t fly onto trains or exit the back of my skull. [/Sarc]

  7. avatar Mk10108 says:

    Except in the case of Newton, a mental defective human, murdered his mother the teachers and children. It’s doubtful he based his rampage on an advert.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      A “Call of Duty” ad, *maybe*…

      1. avatar 10mm says:

        Easy now, shouldn’t risk restricting the first amendment to protect the second.

        In much the same way that Doom and Marylon Manson didn’t shoot up Columbine, CoD is just a game, a Blu-ray that didn’t hurt anyone.

        An adult being unable to differentiate between games and reality, there’s a problem.

    2. avatar Stray Dogg says:

      Sandy Hook was a false flag event designed to bring about an end to the right to keep and bear arms.

      1. avatar SouthernPhantom says:

        There are enough weird little inconsistencies to make me really question what did or didn’t occur there, that’s for sure.

        1. avatar ThomasR says:

          Was Sandy Hook a false flag event? That really isn’t the question. . The core question is that would elements within our own government, intent on implimenting an some type of agenda, in this case passing an AWB, commit such an act against american citizebs, even children?

          I consider such a possibility as a yes. I’m sure most German citizens would never consider elements within the German government, in this case Hitler, would commit such an act as burning the Reischstag to impliment an agenda such as passing an emergency powers act giving Hitler such power over the German citizens.

          Consider that we know our own government currently and in the past had committed such false flag events directly against other governments, as well as trained and funded terrorist groups to committ such atrocities against foreign citizens for implimenting different agendas in these different countries.

          With the current crop of progressive/statist stated hatred of our own constitution, our second amendment rights and for those that defend it; what makes people think those that have the willingness to use terror and mass death against foreign covilians, wouldn’t use that same bloody minded attitude in implimenting an agenda to disarm gun owning americans they have publicly stated are no better than “terrorists” and “insurrectionists”?

      2. avatar Hello World says:

        @Stray Dog….This is some straight up bat crazy shit. What do you do to get this crazy? Sounds like some kick ass drugs.

        1. avatar PeterW says:

          Were you there? Could you logically or even emotionally explain all of the inconsistencies and failure of basic S.O.P. at that “event”? We may never know the truth, but it is a reasonable question to ask “WTF?” regarding the rush to cover-up and legislate based on a unique occurrence. I don’t claim to know the truth, either, but every single piece, or lack of pieces, of evidence points to a giant LIE.

  8. avatar John Fritz, HMFIC says:

    Correlation does not equal causation.

    This lawsuit is a no-brainer.

    I mean the decision is a no-brainer.

    1. avatar sagebrushracer says:

      well, some of the people filing this suit may not be using their brains, just the emotion bits.

      Also, the supreme court heller decision was 5-4. so slightly less than half no brainers in the general populace would be a reasonable estimate.

      Never underestimate the voting block of no brainers when they get all stirred up in a general direction. its like a whirling tornado, nothing more than a general heading, swirling around and stomping on whatever individual rights make them FEEL uncomfortable. It always peters out, but can do a lot of damage before it does.

      Look at the stupid and unenforceable gun laws from the 80s and 90s if you dont believe me. the NY safe act seems to be the modern exception, but same concept.

  9. avatar samuraichatter says:

    And when they lose you can bet dollars to donuts that they will make a public gripe about having to pay attorneys fees to Bushmaster.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Uh, did we get “loser pays” while I wasn’t looking? Otherwise, no payments for attorney fees.

  10. avatar MurrDog says:

    Right. And Doom caused the columbine shooting.

  11. avatar Wrightl3 says:

    Just a liberal trying to fix the “problems” of our society.

  12. avatar SteveH says:

    So, they have as little regard for the 1st Amendment as they do for the 2nd?

    1. avatar Dave says:

      Only when the 1st Amendment is regarding the 2nd Amendment…

  13. avatar Andre Deshawn says:

    YouTube Robbie Parker. Sort of brings into question the central presupposition at work here.

  14. avatar DrewR55 says:

    Easy solution. Bushmaster can put a disclaimer at the bottom stating “not intended for homicical rampages” and the problem will be solved. They’ll also need a disclaimer saying “warning, some owners have reported that the use of this firearm may cause GAS” and “side effects may include happiness, a sense of personal responsibility, camaraderie among friends” just to cover all the bases.

    1. avatar Mr. 308 says:

      Not a joke, ever look in detail at a bag of peanuts?

      Warning: May Contain Peanuts

      1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

        Don’t forgot how it’s all gluten free now, too.

        Oh, look, honey. That bag of oranges is gluten free. Let’s get two!

  15. avatar Stuki Moi says:

    In dystopian hellholes, anything that enables leeches (lawyers et al) to steal from productive people, is fair game. Hence the dystopian part. And the hellhole.

  16. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    The advertising is deceptive and a violation of that state law, the plaintiffs argue, because it uses military imagery to entice the wrong sorts of consumers — civilians — to buy the product and then harm others with it.
    We all know that guns must pass the Sporting Purpose Standard of the Third Reich; and so Bushmaster is thus guilty of selling military grade weapons to civilians who should only possess those of a Sporting Nature. I just cannot live without the wonders of National Socialism.

  17. avatar Sixpack70 says:

    Ah yes, military style weapons. Right now I have a display cabinet full of real military weapons with all of them carried by soldiers and some of them maybe even used to kill people. But, they don’t look scary as they are made from wood and steel, so they pass the begrudging approval list of the nut job leftist anti’s.

  18. avatar Mark_PAV says:

    This is why we need “loser pays” as part of torte reform in this country. We all know this is simply the left trying to put legally operating manufacturers out of business via a backdoor “slowly-bleed-them-to-bankruptcy” scheme. Sue all you want, but if you lose, those that brought the suits have to pay Remington’s legal fees.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “This is why we need “loser pays” as part of torte reform in this country.”

      Really? What happens when the party who you need to sue has *unlimited* resources to bury your ass in so much paper you’re unable to dig through it?

      There is no clear answer in tort reform.

      1. avatar Oblamo binLyen says:

        And…precisely how does being ‘buried in paper work” become a part of tort reform? If you bring a worthless suit just for the hope of a nice payday, you might think twice, as will your attorney when you’re on the hook for the defendants costs. Having sat on a jury for a whole d a m n month on a medical malpractice case that was literally over during closing arguments, the plaintiffs attorney blew his own case out..not that he stood a chance anyway. The Jury took less than an hour to decide the poor widow was just after a nice payday. The judge should never have let this get anywhere near a court room.

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “And…precisely how does being ‘buried in paper work” become a part of tort reform? If you bring a worthless suit just for the hope of a nice payday, you might think twice, as will your attorney when you’re on the hook for the defendants costs.”

          *sigh*

          The problem is when someone has a *legitimate* case to sue, and the defendant has effectively unlimited money to bitch-slap your attorney with endless depositions, findings, etc.

          Individuals will be terrified to even contemplate trying to sue “Big Company”…

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Then, you find a big and powerful law firm and present your case. If they accept it, they will then bury the opposition in paperwork as well, and spend untold millions of billable hours defeating the opponent, who will then spend the rest of his life in abject poverty, once his attorneys are bankrupt. It will only happen once. Then the thrill of such lawsuits will be gone forever.

          Loser pays goes both ways. If you are on the wrong side of the argument, it is time to quit, not double down. What you describe is what happens right now, deep pockets wins every time.

    2. avatar Andrew Lias says:

      Lucky Gunner most certainly did this with the suit filed against them. It wasn’t automatic but it was done.

  19. avatar Bob says:

    They just need that “closed course” disclaimer at the bottom of the ad like the car commercials.

    What I find funny is that the military association adverts has more to due with implied durability and reliability in extreme situations and conditions, than they do with showing how capable the tools are for “getting your murder on”. Playing this game I could go do a drive by and blame every rap video. The shameful thing is that we all know the reason this happened, he shall not be named
    was severely broken and the parent(s) incapable of handling him. I see no talk of parenting reform and intervention reform (children services is a complete joke; they worry more about keeping the “family” together than protecting the children). The court better throw this out and call them idiots for wasting the court’s time.

  20. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    If they advertised to crazies to get them to buy a gun for the purposes of shooting, then why isn’t the news media being sued over this? Fair’s fair.

  21. avatar Uniform Whiskey says:

    So “assault rifles” are now rifles with militaristic and assaultive qualities. got it.

  22. avatar JoeVK says:

    Why is it Bushmaster’s fault? It’s the kid’s fault, and his alone. The object he used is irrelevant. What matters is he did it, not what he did it with. If he used a Stihl chainsaw, would they sue Stihl for making such a dangerous machine?

  23. avatar Stray Dogg says:

    People need to stop believing that the Sandy Hook event was anything more than a DHS drill. There have been two significant attempts to demonize the Second Amendment by the criminals who have hijacked our country, the Obama administration and the complicit media.
    The first was “Fast and Furious”, a program to prove that the availability of guns in America are getting into the hands of Mexican cartel members by actually supplying them with guns.
    The second attempt was the pre planned false flag event known as the Sandy Hook school shooting.
    Here is a documentary that will convince all but the most gullible in our society. I defy anyone who watches this video to refute one thing in it and still try to claim that the event actually happened as reported.
    Please do not dismiss this as crazy conspiracy without first taking the time to watch it in it’s entirety. Anyone who cares about the right to keep and bear arms in America needs to learn the details of this outrageous attempt to bring an end to our Second Amendment.
    “We need to talk about Sandy Hook”.

    1. avatar Rick says:

      Dogg, Reynolds Wrap, HD and lots of it. Make yourself several hats for everyday wear and a special chapeau for Sunday go to meeting day.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        Make yourself several hats for everyday wear

        For him to wear a hat, wouldn’t he need a head? Like with brains and stuff?

        1. avatar JoeVK says:

          And easily reached. Hard to put a hat on when it’s up your backside.

      2. avatar PeterW says:

        5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as “kooks”, “right-wing”, “liberal”, “left-wing”, “terrorists”, “conspiracy buffs”, “radicals”, “militia”, “racists”, “religious fanatics”, “sexual deviates”, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

        “The 25 Rules of Disinformation”

        It doesn’t help your ‘case’ to insult those who dare question the MSM status quo

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Anybody that thinks people on a site such as this are going to watch 2 hours and 46 minutes of *anything* he posts is clearly a bit loopy. There are plenty of sites for those who see intrigue behind every cheeseburger, but this isn’t one of them. If you think there’s something wrong with that, why don’t you go back, say, 5000 posts and then watch all videos over 2 hours long between then and now, and report back to us on them, a quick synopsis of each?

      3. avatar LarryinTX says:

        You guys are mean. I bet you haven’t even watched near 3 hours of crazy before making fun. I know *I* sure haven’t/aint going to.

    2. avatar Wade says:

      I am whole heartedly 100% pro gun and disgusted with the circus and adulteration that is Sandyhook Media Spin. It is horrible and polarizing. Still it does not mean that the shooting is fake. I know there are typos and inconsistencies in some of the documents and police report. That can be said for almost any crime scene and criminal investigation, it happens. Sandyhook Elementary is closed and there are a lot of upset people looking to hang a gun company. Those are 3 facts that are irrefutable. It is also true that just about anytime someone famous dies or there is some other type of tragedy people on the right and on the left with the M.O. “Never let a good tragedy go to waste,” kick the spin cycle in to high gear. There are some things that none of us know and none of us understand about Sandy Hook. There are some things about the media coverage that seemed to be questionable. In fact I have noticed the “crisis actors” myself. I think a viable explanation for that is because it is probably more difficult to find someone connected to an event that will say the right things than it is to pay someone. There is also a push in journalism to not only get a story but to get it first. I don’t agree with this method but I believe it is what happens.

      There are folks on the right and on the left that love to fuel the flames and pour salt in to wounds. These folks are making a mess out of an already bad sittuation and praying on the emotions of all of us.

    3. avatar Ex-gov mule says:

      It would be easier to believe if they didn’t keep using the same pictures.

      http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/peshawar.asp

  24. avatar neiowa says:

    novel liability claim Pretty sure that’s shyster speak for “BS”

    1. avatar Rick says:

      Nah, that’s shyster speak for “show me da money”

  25. avatar Ad Astra says:

    “The advertising is deceptive and a violation of that state law, the plaintiffs argue, because it uses military imagery to entice the wrong sorts of consumers — civilians — to buy the product and then harm others with it.”

    So when do we start suing every car maker for those ads of sports cars racing down roads at dangerous high speeds, and making hair pin turns?

    Like these inhuman monsters from Toyota https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQzZJVfZydE

  26. avatar Chris T from Ya 1q22 says:

    The 1st amendment for everyone or no one.
    The hobby lobby case.
    Citizens united case.
    Tracy Rifle and Guns store window display case in California.
    A corporation of one, two, or a thousand people, they all have a first amendment civil right.
    Way back in the 1950s the state of Alabama sued the NAACP claiming it did not have a 1st amendment right because the NAACP was not a person so it had no 1st amendment right. The state wanted their members list. Fortunately the state of Alabama lost the case.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      In the ’50s. Wow, just wow. Wouldn’t you love an actual explanation, from the plaintiffs, of exactly what they wanted that list for?

    2. avatar Ad Astra says:

      “the state of Alabama sued the NAACP claiming it did not have a 1st amendment right because the NAACP was not a person so it had no 1st amendment right.”

      Gee that sounds oddly familiar, where have I heard that? Oh ya little Barry Obama when he had a temper tantrum when the SCOTUS didn’t roll over and do his bidding to muzzle the rights of groups to engage in free speech.

  27. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    Lawyers and community agitators organizers; they start with the goal, then look for means to get there. Lawyers, its rules, words, and arguments why their thing in some sense makes sense. C O it’s gripes, disruptions, and drama to get enough people “all wee-wee’d up” to monkeywrench the system getting work done into cooporating.

    In both cased it is just extortion, extracting a rake off from the productive folks who need things to work to survive . “Pay us, or we’llblow up the system you use to sustain yourselves. We’ve got nothing to lose, but you do.”

  28. avatar Gman says:

    Maybe they really do need to change their marketing philosophy. Just think of all the fun they could have with it.

    BUSH-MASTER, It ain’t just for pussies.

  29. avatar ThomasR says:

    Some lawyers sat down and conspired to find any means to come up with a “novel” method to get them an even a bigger payday(they get paid even if they lose), with the purpose of driving up the costs of buying a “military grade weapon”, making them less available to the public.

    What’s the difference between a lawyer and a catfish? One is a cold blooded bottom dwelling scum sucker that lives in darkness, and the other one is a fish.
    .
    .

  30. avatar Captcha The Flag says:

    “would have to prove it DOESN’T make the opposition bow down”

    i dunno i chuckled at that statement…haha

  31. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

    Ok, for the sake of argument let’s for a moment assume that marketing a rifle for military acts can cause people to act militarily. Isn’t it against the rules of war to massacre unarmed civilians? Therefore we should thank Bushmaster for choosing a marketing strategy that works against these criminal purposes.

  32. avatar Ian says:

    This is like the family of an idiot who wraps his sports car around a pole while racing suing the car manufacturer for advertising the car is fast with a racing heritage.

  33. avatar Kyle says:

    So the guns are military guns and the advertising is deceptive because it says the guns are military…?

    Also, what makes everyone so sure the Judge will dismiss it?

  34. avatar Greg says:

    According to the police report and very awful, almost intentionally grainy crime scene photos that show the rifle and a small red spot on the bed, Nancy Lanza was shot through the eye with a bolt action 22LR (I think a Savage) while laying in bed. Then apparently Lanza just dropped the rifle there and headed out for the day. If that sounds weird to you, you are not alone. Anyway, in the post above you make it sound like she was shot with the Bushmaster. Not true, according to the report.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email