Georgia gun maker Daniel Defense has withdrawn from the NRA Annual Meeting that kicks off in Houston, Texas tomorrow after investigators revealed that the rifle used by the 18-year old murderer in his attack on a classroom at Robb Elementary in Uvalde, Texas came from the company.

Daniel Defense pulls out of NRA convention – Bearing Arms

Goody! You feel “guilty” about what some asshole allegedly did with one of your products. Fake Remorse ain’t going to help you with the incoming lawsuit. If you are thinking about the bottom line, not showing your customers you have the balls to stand tall even when shit is being flung at you is even worse.

Enjoy writing those compensation checks.

Hat tip MannyL.


Spread the love

By Miguel.GFZ

Semi-retired like Vito Corleone before the heart attack. Consiglieri to J.Kb and AWA. I lived in a Gun Control Paradise: It sucked and got people killed. I do believe that Freedom scares the political elites.

20 thoughts on “Daniel Defense pulls out of the NRA. Lack of backbone cited as cause.”
  1. What was the thing they did before that soured them to the gun community? I can’t rmember if it was a company action or some statement by the CEO.

    You think they’d learn from Remington’s holding company

  2. The pussification of America is almost complete.. wheres my Country??? The whole “gun culture “ is getting full of emasculated people who “dont want to offend anyone”…. Fuk

    1. He got a job at Wendy’s specifically to buy guns.

      He shot his grandmother over a dispute about a cell phone bill.

      My guess is that granny was pissed that she was still paying for his phone after he bought $4k worth of gun stuff.

      1. Minimum wage at Wendy’s would take a few months to earn enough for a DD rifle, even working close to full time.

        Yet another case where the killer had plenty of time to plan his attack. Who thinks the five-day “cooling off” period or “one gun a month” laws would help?

        1. These days the banks give idiots with zero credit and no job credit cards with a $25,000 limit.
          He probably worked at Wendy’s for a week or two, showed a paycheck to the bank and got a VISA immediately. Since he likely had no intention of paying it back, who cares what the interest rate is.
          Seriously, nothing is saying he had to have cash in pocket to buy the guns.

          1. Fair point.

            Even so, that would take some planning and groundwork. Less than earning enough cash, but still not-insignificant. Weeks instead of months.

            Either way, the killer made a plan, prepared, and executed it. Everyone else was playing catch-up.

            (Although, with the “speed” of the police response, he could have winged it with a kitchen knife and a sharpened stick and had similar results.)

  3. They are hoping to win points for their sensitivity. The only people who award points for that are those who want to put them out of business.

  4. Breaks my heart that Lee Greenwood and Don McLean (sp?) are pulling out of the convention where they had been scheduled to perform….

  5. Pulling out of the convention will get you nowhere with the left. If DD gets sued, the lawsuit will be heard in Texas, which I would think judges there are a bit different than Connecticut (Remington lawsuit from Sandy Hook). We do not want this to be the norm where manufacturers get sued because murderers happen to buy their product. Costs will go up for eveything.

    1. I’m just waiting for GMC to be sued the next time a Cadillac Escalade is used in a drive-by shooting, or some drunk plows one into somebody’s home.

      What’s that you say? It’s not the vehicle manufacturer’s fault that murderers buy their products or use them in crime? Imagine that.

      Anti-gunners gripe about PLCAA — the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act — because they claim it gives “special protections” to the gun industry. The reality is, those same protections exist for all manufacturers; the PLCAA just explicitly names the gun industry.

      Maybe the reason the gun industry needed “special” protections is because, despite complying with some of the most strictly-enforced laws and regulations around, they still face “special” ire on the legal and political fronts. IOW, maybe if anti-gun people weren’t so quick to disregard normal liability limitations and file baseless nuisance lawsuits against lawfully-run manufacturers, those manufacturers wouldn’t need normal liability limitations specifically spelled out in law.

      In the meantime, I’ll keep waiting for a car manufacturer to have their limited liability challenged and summarily disregarded because of a drive-by or drunk driver.

    2. Thenk Ghawd! McLean and Greenwood canceled at the NRA convention!

      After all, Der(p) NRA was ALL!OVER! THE! Uvulde shooting!

      (wait, what? POS shooter wasn’t a member? NRA in fact encouraged GGWG (Good Guys/Gals With Guns) to patrol/protect schools where allowed to do so?

      Who knew? (Other than anybody paying the slightest bit of attention, that is…)?


    3. Pulling out the way they did could be used as evidence against them in a lawsuit.
      You wonder what sort of morons are running that company, and what sort of idiots they have serving them as lawyers.

      1. IANAL Warning in full effect.
        While pulling out of an event is not evidence in any way, a prosecution/plaintiff attorney will absolutely, 100% use it to sway the jury. (Assuming it gets that far.)
        A jury trial is not about evidence, it is about swaying the jury, mostly the jury’s emotions. And, it only takes the attorney to say “the fact that they pulled out of the NRA convention is a clear indication they felt responsible for the actions of this killer.” Even if it is beyond stupid, and the Judge strikes it from the record, the jury will not unhear it.

        1. One definition of a jury is, “Twelve people assembled to determine which side has the best lawyer.”

          Evidence is secondary, especially in an emotionally-charged civil trial. A good attorney will know this.

          1. Which of you are lawyers? Neither? Gosh – I couldn’t have guessed. /s/

            I am. I’ve tried in the neighborhood of 100 cases to a jury, criminal cases all, with the highest burden of proof. I’ve tried them on both sides, both as a prosecutor and defense attorney. I’ve won more than my fair share.

            And I’ll say without a doubt, at least in my jurisdiction, you’re both, to put it kindly, full of shit.

            Jurors do an amazingly good job, on balance, of weighing the evidence. And they mostly get it right, in the sense that they hold the State to its burden of proof. They’re generally pretty good at separating the wheat from the chaff, to the extent that the chaff makes it to the jury. A judge’s job is to separate the BS out before it ever gets to a jury. The legal system, for all its faults, is not generally the problem. And the levels of bullshit that are told and believed is truly astounding.

            A jury trial is ALL about evidence. Period. If it’s not relevant as evidence, it doesn’t get in before the jury.

            DD may have pulled out because of the optics. I get that. The people that hate them won’t hate them any less. I get that. But it will have no bearing whatsoever on any trial that may happen when this is over. And any attorney that attempts to make it an issue is likely to be keelhauled by first the judge, and then the jury. It’s the kind of appeal you make when you don’t have facts. And juries know it.

            1. All that sounds good, and I hope your view of juries is valid for highly charged situations like this. But there’s a different question: we know there are plenty of dishonest DAs out there. Could they use the DD statement as a lever to bring them pain? They might not win in the end, but in the meantime they could cause a world of hurt, and for some of them that is sufficient.

            2. Cool, a real live lawyer weighing in.
              So, is Daniel Defense pulling out of the NRA convention any kind of evidence whatsoever? If the plaintiff/prosecution claims that action means anything, is it admissible, and what kind of weight does it carry?
              Or is it just speculation on the part of the attorney, designed for the purpose of swaying emotion?

Only one rule: Don't be a dick.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.