Bravo!
"The Sandy Hook families pursued a different legal theory:
"They argued that Remington’s advertisements for the AR-15–style weapon ran afoul of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act by promoting unethical and illegal use of the weapon. Their lawsuit cited multiple ads that depicted the gun not as a tool of home defense, hunting, or sport, but as a weapon of war meant to kill a large number of people in a small amount of time.
"Remington advertised the gun as “the ultimate combat weapons system” used by the armed forces in theaters of war. It depicted a close-up of the gun with the slogan “Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered.” It touted the weapon as an “uncompromising choice” with “military proven performance.”
"As the Connecticut Supreme Court explained, the thrust of Remington’s ads was that the gun would “enable a shooter to inflict unparalleled carnage.”
You little ripper, about time the gun manufacturers had to face the music. I hope it costs those bastards Trillions in compensation.
Who are you calling a little ripper? Just looked it up. I assume you mean the killer. One definition (dictionary.com):
"a killer who dispatches and often mutilates victims with a knife or similar weapon"
@LiterateHiker No, it's an Aussie expression of joy, nothing to do with Jack the Ripper or anything sinister.
Maybe, just maybe, checking out where I'm from BEFORE you respond might help next time.
Now that is a legal theory that is worth pursuing.