Daniel Defense is one of the better-known manufacturers of AR-15s. They sell really good quality rifles, and they stand with the Second Amendment, which is kind of essential for their business to succeed. Having chatted with a few of the guys who work there in the past, it’s a company made up of good people who simply want to provide a much-needed product to the American people so we can defend ourselves and our way of life, if need be.
But then, on the flip side, we have the Good Men Project, which thinks that in order to be a good man, you have to be, among other things, an anti-gun loon.
Today, they have a piece where they try to make the claim that Daniel Defense not just markets to mass shooters specifically, but is the reason why West Virginia has some of its pro-gun laws.
A month earlier, AR-15 manufacturer Daniel Defense LLC, the maker of one of the rifles used in the attack, posted an advertisement on Instagram depicting a car in the crosshairs of a rifle scope.
“Rooftop ready,” the post read.
A year later, Lowy sued Daniel Defense, another in a line of legal actions to curb mass shootings by suing gun companies based on marketing practices.
Lowy’s lawyers argued that the gunmaker intentionally used paramilitary-style imagery and video games to market its products to disturbed young men and teenage boys.
The shooter at Edmund Burke School, the lawsuit said, used Daniel Defense’s “weapons just as they encouraged him to in their marketing, targeting Lowy’s car with a scope, and riddling it with as many bullets as he could.”
More than 1,400 people have died in mass shootings since 2000, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Assault rifles have become one of the most common weapons used in these incidents, according to The Violence Project, a research center at Hamline University studying mass shootings.
And AR-15s have been used in America’s deadliest mass shootings.
…
“The way this gun company, or really gun conglomerate at the time, was marketing their AR-15s, particularly through the Bushmaster brand, was patently illegal under Connecticut law,” he said.
Remington later settled with the families for $73 million.
In his video, Reeves explained how the ruling set a legal precedent that could hurt Daniel’s company.
“I think at the end of the day, it’s going to take legislative action to close up this loophole,” Reeves said.
After watching the video, Coop-Gonzalez said he realized he could do something about it. The delegate left a voicemail at Reeves’ law office. Later, Reeves called back.
The result was a bill in West Virginia that makes it harder to sue manufacturers for this kind of stupidity.
However, I think we need to correct something. Remington did not settle with the families. When that settlement came down, I said something similar, and someone from Remington reached out to correct me. See, it was their insurance company that reached the settlement, not Remington, which is important because the implication here is that Remington accepted its own wrongdoing, which isn’t what happened.
That’s because Remington wasn’t responsible in any way. The whackjob who attacked Sandy Hook Elementary School is where responsibility begins and ends. Further, that twerp didn’t even buy a gun; he murdered his own mother to steal hers.
Marty Daniel, who owns Daniel Defense, has spoken before legislative bodies about the Second Amendment, gun rights, and his company. He’s defended his company’s marketing as well.
What gets me here, though, is that for the Good Men Project, the accusation of wrongdoing here is enough for them to try to tar and feather everything Marty Daniel touches, including expressing his thoughts on a potential law that would impact his entire industry. How is that being a good man? What about that comports with the supposed mission statement of describing what masculinity should look like in the 21st century? Is it really just taking every accusation at face value, especially if it supports your own leftist and anti-gun sentiments?
Then again, I’m not shocked. This is the same publication that blamed gun owners, as a whole, for mass shootings we never committed nor supported. It’s the same one that thinks the Second Amendment should be infringed upon simply because the Declaration of Independence didn’t specifically mention gun rights. The same one that thinks there’s no way to be a good man if you’re not a supporter of gun control.
While guns shouldn’t be a masculine thing–they should be for both genders, after all–the idea that the people who have never looked at the Second Amendment as anything other than something to be torn to shreds also think an accusation by people looking for a payout is damning enough that everything they touch should be shunned.
Daniel Defense did nothing wrong. It’s marketing to AR-15 buyers, many of whom consider themselves to be modern minutemen, and who want rifles that can be used in defense of our country from the forces of tyranny. The military-like marketing is because of that, and anyone with half a brain should be able to see that.
Unfortunately for us all, no one who fits that criteria is interested in writing for the Good Men Project. They’d probably rather be slathered in honey and staked to a fire ant hill in the blistering sun instead.
I know I would.
Editor’s Note: The radical Left will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.
Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Read the full article here
