That's why I reached out to Cam Edwards, editor of Bearing Arms and longtime newsman, to give his opinion on the story and discuss mine as well. Cam recently interviewed Parkland father Ryan Petty about The Post's decision and how some families have reacted to it. He said Petty and several other families were disturbed by The Post publishing the images, especially since not everyone affected was directly contacted by the paper.

Cam argued that The Post's decision to selectively publish only pictures from mass shootings that featured AR-15s made the effort transparently political. We discussed how pictures from other mass killings are almost certainly equally disturbing. But The Post singled out AR-15s as part of a clear effort to get those particular guns banned, something that was underlined by an editorial published alongside the pictures.

Cam said he didn't view The Post's efforts as journalism. Instead, he argued the paper was engaged in direct activism.

Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I talk about the strange reasoning a federal judge used to uphold Colorado's gun waiting period.

Special Guest: Cam Edwards.

That's why I brought on one of the best gun writers out there: Bearing Arms editor Cam Edwards.

Cam and I go through the 6-year timeline of the case and talk about how we got to this settlement. The case was filed in 2015 with three different claims for how Remington was liable for the actions of the shooter. Two of those arguments dealt with how selling the AR-15, the most popular rifle in America, to civilians was unacceptable because the plaintiffs view them as "weapons of war." Those claims were tossed by the Connecticut Supreme Court.

However, the same court allowed the third claim that Remington's advertising violated Connecticut law and contributed to the lethality of the attack to move forward. The United States Supreme Court declined to intervene after that and Remington Outdoor Company filed for bankruptcy a few months later. That put the defunct company's insurers in charge of the case and they moved to settle almost immediately after that.

The nature of the plaintiffs' argument combined with a lack of evidence the shooter or his mother (who actually bought the gun) ever saw the advertising makes it difficult to understand the insurers' decision. I've offered up some explanation for it, but Cam had some additional insights I'd never thought of before.

He noted that the recent payouts to the Parkland and Sutherland Springs shooting victims may have played into the insurers' calculous. Those cases saw totals over the $100 million mark. Plus, a jury could be sympathetic to the victims and try to hold Remington accountable for what happened since it's difficult to find anyone else to hold responsible.

At the same time, Cam said the merits of the case seemed weak and people aren't inclined to blame a company when somebody uses their product to commit a crime. 

We also predicted how the settlement might impact the industry as a whole. Cam said insurance rates may go up and the success of the plaintiffs could inspire similar suits. However, he noted these kinds of suits have been going for decades already and the settlement did not set any kind of binding legal precedent.

Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss Beto O'Rourke's latest zig-zag on gun confiscation.

Special Guest: Cam Edwards.