they are clearly trying to be "edgy" by playing off the punWhich means they're targeting (badum-tsh) their potential client base.
Or are you implying they're actually hoping someone who needs group therapy will see this ad and buy a rifle?
they are clearly trying to be "edgy" by playing off the punWhich means they're targeting (badum-tsh) their potential client base.
Or are you implying they're actually hoping someone who needs group therapy will see this ad and buy a rifle?
I believe that's a real reach...they are clearly trying to be "edgy" by playing off the pun
I think you're seeing what you want to see here.they are clearly trying to be "edgy" by playing off the pun
I don't think the scope ad is very unusual, but there are absolutely some firearm ads that are highly suggestive of illegal activity. Not sure whether the Bushmaster specifically has any, but IIRC it was the discovery process that ultimately showed the true colors of the tobacco industry.
Still doubtful that anything meaningful comes of this, but I do support the one hole CT's Supreme Court has created in the legal immunity gifted to the gun industry. IMO they should be no more or less liable than any other company.
I'm puzzled. Can you give examples?I don't think the scope ad is very unusual, but there are absolutely some firearm ads that are highly suggestive of illegal activity. Not sure whether the Bushmaster specifically has any, but IIRC it was the discovery process that ultimately showed the true colors of the tobacco industry.
Still doubtful that anything meaningful comes of this, but I do support the one hole CT's Supreme Court has created in the legal immunity gifted to the gun industry. IMO they should be no more or less liable than any other company.
Sounds like the linked images in the post didn't load for you? I know the board doesn't always play nice with every browser.I'm puzzled. Can you give examples?
They did. I find the images disturbing but in no way illegal. What law?Sounds like the linked images in the post didn't load for you? I know the board doesn't always play nice with every browser.
https://www.motherjones.com/wp-content/uploads/rem-ad.jpg
https://www.motherjones.com/wp-content/uploads/ammo-AD-OBAMA.jpg
I don’t think the Remington ad is outright calling for violence against elected officials, but I do think it’s threatening it with a wink and a nudge. In a world where the right-wing media and GOP representatives are publishing imagery that shows targets on the faces of politicians who advocate for gun control, I find this kind of “walk the line” marketing by gun makers to be highly irresponsible.They did. I find the images disturbing but in no way illegal. What law?
I do and it's not. This was settled first in the late 1700s with the Sedition Act cases and most recently in Wiki. Punishing speech, including advertising, is a very slippery slope, which was recognized early in the history of the republic...I don’t think the Remington ad is outright calling for violence against elected officials, but I do think it’s threatening it with a wink and a nudge. In a world where the right-wing media and GOP representatives are publishing imagery that shows targets on the faces of politicians who advocate for gun control, I find this kind of “walk the line” marketing by gun makers to be highly irresponsible.
If Dodge marketed the Challenger as “great for running over protestors” before or after it was used in Charlottesville to do just that, I don’t know if that would be illegal, but it would certainly be immoral, and Dodge would likely be sued. When gun manufacturers market their products as essentially “great for shooting politicians” behind a wink and a nod, I don’t find it to be a vastly different situation.
Doesn't change the way I feel about the rest of my comment, but I appreciate the link.I do and it's not. This was settled first in the late 1700s with the Sedition Act cases and most recently in Wiki. Punishing speech, including advertising, is a very slippery slope, which was recognized early in the history of the republic...
When they come after any speech, yours may be next is the lesson...Doesn't change the way I feel about the rest of my comment, but I appreciate the link.
Knee-jerk reactions are virtually never appropriate - especially when talking about a natural right.Every little bit helps.
I ran mine through the grinder...Bump stock ban now in effect. They are now illegal and CJ Roberts refuses to delay implementation.
Every little bit helps.
Yep, I completely agree. The "slippery slope" theory is a very real thing. Regardless if it is viewed as a "fallacy" with its own wiki page. LOL!I do and it's not. This was settled first in the late 1700s with the Sedition Act cases and most recently in Wiki. Punishing speech, including advertising, is a very slippery slope, which was recognized early in the history of the republic...
For example - England now has knife laws that are stricter than some of our state gun laws...Yep, I completely agree. The "slippery slope" theory is a very real thing. Regardless if it is viewed as a "fallacy" with its own wiki page. LOL!
It's certainly true with regulating speech, no matter how distasteful...Yep, I completely agree. The "slippery slope" theory is a very real thing. Regardless if it is viewed as a "fallacy" with its own wiki page. LOL!