“Just as blood did not run in U.S. streets after the expiration of the assault weapons ban, society won’t crater now that lawsuits can’t be filed against gun makers and distributors for the misuse of their products in a crime.”
It's hard to imagine that The New York Times editorial page could misconstrue an issue involving guns, seeing as how the writers of the troubled Gray Lady's editorials are so open-minded about the Second Amendment. (That, dear readers, would be sarcasm.)
An offering last week about legislation before the U.S. House that would protect gun manufacturers from nuisance lawsuits posited: "This extraordinary shield, written to the diktat of the National Rifle Association, is so sweeping that it would have barred the D.C. sniper settlement and other valid negligence claims."
Hmmmmmm. Sounds like an editorial written to the diktat of the Brady Center for the Prevention of Gun Violence, so sweeping are its flabbergasted expressions of outrage.
I confess I didn't bother to read what The Times had to say editorially after the House passed HR 800 last Thursday. A person can take only so much hyperbole in one week.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_388009.html
On any other issue in the world, a 283-144 vote would be considered charmingly, refreshingly bipartisan. For 59 Democrats to join 223 Republicans (and one independent) in putting a lid on lawsuits that were geared toward bankrupting a legal business in this country means there is merit in the argument and in the way that the legislation is written.
But don't expect opponents of the act to see it that way. They will fabricate a scenario about how cowed those Democrats were by the big bad gun lobby. Every last man and woman of them is facing a difficult re-election battle next fall, they will argue, and the lawmakers can't afford to alienate gun rights advocates when it comes to polling time.
Whatever. The fact stands that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which was passed by the Senate in July by a 65-31 vote, now goes to President Bush. He has said he will sign it.
Gun grabbers have attempted for decades to avoid the rightful place to discuss the nation's federal gun laws -- Congress -- by filing lawsuits in cases in which some miscreant criminally misuses a gun. The plaintiffs want to hold the gun maker responsible for the criminal act of some scofflaw. That would be like holding General Motors and Exxon Mobil responsible if some looney used a Suburban with a full tank of petrol to run over a bus bench full of people.
Every one of these nuisance lawsuits has been thrown out by judges who recognize the speciousness of the arguments and who understand that laws are supposed to be made in the legislative branch, not the judicial branch, of government.
Truth is, as much as they profess that their legal machinations are all about reducing crime, the anti-gun folks are all about financially crippling the small-arms industry through legal fees.
Now before you sip from the same gallon of Kool-Aid from which the Times' editorial writers drink on a regular basis -- the one mixed up by the Brady Center and a million marching mommies -- do yourself a favor:
Read the act. It clearly states the situations in which civil liability lawsuits can go forward against gun manufacturers, distributors and sellers.
If a gun maker puts out a faulty product that ends up injuring or killing someone when used as intended, the gun maker should be sued. If due diligence isn't followed and a gun dealer sells a firearm to a person who is by law forbidden to possess one, the dealer and the buyer should be arrested. If the gun maker falsifies sales records or conspires with a firearms dealer to do so, they should be arrested and charged, with civil liability lawsuits to follow.
Just as blood did not run in U.S. streets after the expiration of the assault weapons ban, society won't crater now that lawsuits can't be filed against gun makers and distributors for the misuse of their products in a crime.
STUPIDITY SOMETIMES AMAZES ME! :barf: :barf: :barf:
Smile,
iBear
It's hard to imagine that The New York Times editorial page could misconstrue an issue involving guns, seeing as how the writers of the troubled Gray Lady's editorials are so open-minded about the Second Amendment. (That, dear readers, would be sarcasm.)
An offering last week about legislation before the U.S. House that would protect gun manufacturers from nuisance lawsuits posited: "This extraordinary shield, written to the diktat of the National Rifle Association, is so sweeping that it would have barred the D.C. sniper settlement and other valid negligence claims."
Hmmmmmm. Sounds like an editorial written to the diktat of the Brady Center for the Prevention of Gun Violence, so sweeping are its flabbergasted expressions of outrage.
I confess I didn't bother to read what The Times had to say editorially after the House passed HR 800 last Thursday. A person can take only so much hyperbole in one week.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_388009.html
On any other issue in the world, a 283-144 vote would be considered charmingly, refreshingly bipartisan. For 59 Democrats to join 223 Republicans (and one independent) in putting a lid on lawsuits that were geared toward bankrupting a legal business in this country means there is merit in the argument and in the way that the legislation is written.
But don't expect opponents of the act to see it that way. They will fabricate a scenario about how cowed those Democrats were by the big bad gun lobby. Every last man and woman of them is facing a difficult re-election battle next fall, they will argue, and the lawmakers can't afford to alienate gun rights advocates when it comes to polling time.
Whatever. The fact stands that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which was passed by the Senate in July by a 65-31 vote, now goes to President Bush. He has said he will sign it.
Gun grabbers have attempted for decades to avoid the rightful place to discuss the nation's federal gun laws -- Congress -- by filing lawsuits in cases in which some miscreant criminally misuses a gun. The plaintiffs want to hold the gun maker responsible for the criminal act of some scofflaw. That would be like holding General Motors and Exxon Mobil responsible if some looney used a Suburban with a full tank of petrol to run over a bus bench full of people.
Every one of these nuisance lawsuits has been thrown out by judges who recognize the speciousness of the arguments and who understand that laws are supposed to be made in the legislative branch, not the judicial branch, of government.
Truth is, as much as they profess that their legal machinations are all about reducing crime, the anti-gun folks are all about financially crippling the small-arms industry through legal fees.
Now before you sip from the same gallon of Kool-Aid from which the Times' editorial writers drink on a regular basis -- the one mixed up by the Brady Center and a million marching mommies -- do yourself a favor:
Read the act. It clearly states the situations in which civil liability lawsuits can go forward against gun manufacturers, distributors and sellers.
If a gun maker puts out a faulty product that ends up injuring or killing someone when used as intended, the gun maker should be sued. If due diligence isn't followed and a gun dealer sells a firearm to a person who is by law forbidden to possess one, the dealer and the buyer should be arrested. If the gun maker falsifies sales records or conspires with a firearms dealer to do so, they should be arrested and charged, with civil liability lawsuits to follow.
Just as blood did not run in U.S. streets after the expiration of the assault weapons ban, society won't crater now that lawsuits can't be filed against gun makers and distributors for the misuse of their products in a crime.
STUPIDITY SOMETIMES AMAZES ME! :barf: :barf: :barf:
Smile,
iBear
