by Jack Lee
While on the campaign trail in New York Hillary recently said she wanted legislation to make it easier to sue weapons manufacturers like the company that made the AR15 used in the Sandy Hook School shooting. “What are we (public) supposed to tell these parents?” Clinton said. How about telling them, we’re deeply sorry for your loss, but we can no more sue a drunk driver for the criminal misuse of his automobile than we can sue a gun manufacture for the criminal misuse of his gun. Guns and cars are legal to own in this country and until they aren’t it’s wrong to sue the company that made them because an individuals gross misuse. We’re not going to undermine the US Constitution in order to appease those who would exploit this tragedy for their own personal/political gain. That Mrs.Clinton would be wrong and two wrongs will never make a right.
A [free] country like ours is filled with potentially dangerous objects available to the public – a jail cell is not. Choose how you would want to live by how you vote in June.
“How about telling them, we’re deeply sorry for your loss, but we can no more sue a drunk driver for the criminal misuse of his automobile than we can sue a gun manufacture for the criminal misuse of his gun.”
I believe this is a typo. Didn’t you mean to say “but we can no more sue a car manufacturer for the criminal use of an automobile by a drunk driver…”. You can “sue a drunk driver for the criminal use of his automobile”.
More Common Sense I’m sure that’s what Jack meant to write.
Are their any pockets these socialists won’t put their hands into to pander for power and votes? Clinton’s proposal is ridiculous.
OMG where in the US Constitution does it say I can carry a nuclear arm?
Bottom line suing a manufacture for what happens to a legally sold weapon is a slippery slope. That will never happen. if the manufactures sold the weapons as mass shooting fun that would be another story.
Bernie is taking a beating because he stood up for what is right.
That said the US Constitution was not written in the context you project.
I support banning a few weapons that have no other purpose but to kill humans at a fast pace.
You follow media propaganda views like sheeple.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
That does not say all nutjobs can carry weapons of mass destruction to kill those people they disagree with.
Sensible gun regulation is needed. We use to respect guns and teach gun safety now we have people shooting others cleaning a gun loaded! loaded guns falling into the hands of toddlers. Why? Because they are just a toy for idiots these days. BTW I thought “Obama Gonna Git Yer Gun”?
Respect our right to bear arms and it shall not be infringed. The purpose is to secure a free state not kill children.
Clinton says that while fundraising at the NRA. You fail to see how these establishment politicians work. It is all talk no action yet your pants are on fire?
yes the proposal is ridiculous and so is your attack on the left as all buying into it.
A. The weapons you want on the banned list are already on the banned list.
B. Stop going off on a tangent, assuming you know Jack’s position.
C. We ALREADY HAVE sensible gun laws. We have federal laws and state laws, thousands of them.
D. The left gets attacked because there are radicals on the left whose goal is to remove all firearms from the private sector.
E. Jack is very familiar with gun laws having served in the military and as an officer of the law.
F. The NRA and local shooting ranges do teach gun safety and they do it well, including safety training for kids.
Please don’t berate us for not knowing what we’re talking about like some know it all…it’s annoying.
A few random thoughts—
The Second Amendment to our constitution grants nothing. Our rights are unalienable, granted by God. As such, our government does not have the power to grant or revoke them. Do not let the other side hi-jack the discussion with specious terms like “legitimate hunters”.
Under original intent, the term “well regulated” means working properly and/or well trained. A “free state” is synonymous with “state of freedom”. So try this… A well trained militia being necessary for the security of a state of freedom, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
“Gun control” is not about guns. It is about control.
P>S> you ever realize all these politicians make everything in to tax deductible fines and lawsuits so the offender can write it off and the lawyers rake in the dough?
Always a way to make more money using the populous sentiment and nothing happens but money circulates.
All those BP fines? tax Write off. 11 people died on that oil rig and the man in charge? probation. As long as the big corporations make money any humans killed become a tax deductible fine. The Gulf is screwed up still and they pushed the oil to the bottom….when it comes back up? taxpayers pay, fishing industry pays.
Our system is a fascist profit over life ……..corporate controlled farce.
Every person who takes a job on a rig KNOWS he’s working in a high risk profession. That’s why they get paid over $100, 000 dollars and more a year with medical and other perks. Don;t pull that bleeding hear BS Dewey.
No company in the world can prevent accidents…for a very simple reason…people make mistakes. The oil industry actually has a very good safety record overall when you consider the millions and millions of barrels of oil they provide to the people year after year.
BP paid $4.5 billion in a settlement with the U.S. government; two BP employees faced manslaughter charges and another was charged with obstruction of justice.
The company also dealt with more legal problems filed separately by state and private entities. NYT reported four years after the spill that BP had “…spent $28 billion on damage claims and cleanup costs.”
Fines and penalties are not deductible.
People as uninformed and ignorant as you, shooting off your mouth, are creating a lot of unnecessary ill will toward business owners and costing a lot of people the opportunity to work in the process. You are an ignorant, dangerous fool!
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A RISK-LESS SOCIETY.
So When Dew-drip-in, and makes a SWAG comment that is easily discounted (as most misinformation type of Liberal tyrants) He takes the next LEFT turn up Liberal avenue, and attempts to muddy the discussion with another direction. This post was about misuse of products, Guns specifically and the political crap flowing from Hillary about what she thinks (if she does) should be done.
As usual Hillary was just trying to gain some favorable momentum, attempting to incite voters by using Guns as a favorable lever.
Obviously her handlers realize she needed something as she doesn’t seem to be able to best a known baseline socialist like Sanders as of late, so lets go after guns, always a popular issue with anti freedom, anti gunners types like herself.
I also think even concerned Democrats realize she is not the most credible candidate for the party.
I any case, Jacks comments ring loud and clear, it is not the producer of a legal product, Guns, cars hammers or knifes who is at fault, it’s the criminal way in which they are used. Now with the beginning of Baseball season, baseball bats may very well fall into Hillary’s scope of limited vision, soooo look out Spalding!
In closing, “That said the US Constitution was not written in the context you project”
nor is it in your context either, but your liberal thinking will try to change it as it deems necessary for your positions, another Dew droplet epic fail comment.
Harold thanks for your thoughts. The incredible thing about this proposal is that it comes from the mouth of a lawyer. Apparently Hillary thinks the law is just another thing to be exploited.
That’s what comes of taking more from studying Saul Alinsky and Marx than from the founding fathers.
You would think someone aspiring to the presidency would at least prefer American values to those of Alinsky and Marx. Neither Hillary nor Bernie prefer our founding principles.