Monday, May 02, 2016

The Brady Campaign, and Other Lying Democrats

The Brady Campaign is one of my most detested organizations.  Their premise since day one was built on a lie, and they've continued to build on that lie.  They have failed, over and over, to win in the legislatures and in public opinion, and now they're attacking an act that was passed in Congress in 2005.  The act is fairly simple in it's premise.  As the Wiki page explains.
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products is held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligence when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.
That's pretty simple.  It seems like common sense legislation. If the product is not defective, the manufacturer can't be held liable for criminal misuse.  But, the Brady bunch wants to repeal the statute so that they can sue gun manufacturers who's guns are used in crime, or in accidents.

Hot Air gives good coverage of this particular debate, and draws a parallel to another industry that might be held liable if their product is used in a criminal matter.
 If you purchase a properly functioning toaster which regularly produces slices of toast without catching fire, exploding or causing any other damage, you’ve likely gotten yourself a perfectly acceptable appliance. But let’s say you get in a fight with your girlfriend. Afterward, you go draw a relaxing bath and lay back to soak for a while. And now let’s say that your angry girlfriend walks into the bathroom, plugs in the toaster, pushes down the handle and tosses it into the bathtub with you. You’re dead. Do you really think your family should sue Hamilton Beach? After all, they knowingly produced a toaster with live electrical wires inside of it which are exposed to the atmosphere and potentially the water in your tub.
Some might say that we're stretching the point.  Toasters are not designed to kill people and handguns are designed to kill.  Regardless of the fact that millions of handguns will never be used in a criminal manner, regardless of the fact that strict legal regimes exist to minimize the transfer of handguns to the criminal element, regardless of the fact that there are strict licensing requirements on manufacturers and dealers, regardless of the fact that those manufacturers and dealers can be held liable if they commit an infraction of any of the myriad laws and regulations that govern the trade.

Hillary is attacking the gun industry because it appeals to her base.  In a debate, she made the following statement while attacking Bernie Sanders, her opponent.
Hillary attacked, saying, “It was pretty straightforward to me that [Sanders} was going to give immunity to the only industry in America. Everybody else has to be accountable, but not the gun manufacturers.”
Never let anyone tell you that the Democrats aren't out to take your guns.  Their record is clear, and the talking points they use in debates are clear.  They're out for your guns.  They want to take them.  They want to bankrupt the manufacturers with frivolous lawsuits, they want to ban every gun they can ban, they want to adjudicate, legislate, and regulate our hobby completely out of existence.


Timmeehh said...

"Toasters are not designed to kill people and handguns are designed to kill."

This is a false premise. Firearms are designed to propel bullets at high velocity with reasonable accuracy. Nothing more.

A good man may use a firearm to put food on the table, protect his family or just put holes in a target.

A bad man may use a firearm to commit all manner of crimes.

Whether a firearm is used for good or evil is entirely dependent on who's holding it. Inanimate objects do not possess free will or have any intent.

Please do not allow our enemies to frame the discussion.


It's damned difficult to tell a man holding a rifle what to do.

Rivrdog said...

This is the first time I have ever disagreed with you, PawPaw. GUNS.ARE.NEVER.A.HOBBY! No, I am not playing word games here. The Second Amendment CLEARLY states (by deductive implication) what guns are, they are NECESSARY tools for the defense of Liberty. A perfectly logical negative case can be made against the gun-banners by simply pointing out that their objective is to BAN LIBERTY ITSELF.

I own guns suitable for the defense of Liberty: my Liberty, your Liberty, every citizen's Liberty. As a citizen, I have the ABSOLUTE DUTY to defend Liberty. I will not surrender this Duty, or consider myself relieved of it, until I have drawn my last breath.