Posts
The Second Amendment is under attack as usual. Nine families of those killed in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, which occurred in Connecticut two years ago, filed a lawsuit Monday against the manufacturer of the AR-15 Bushmaster rifle and Riverview Gun Sales, the shop that sold the weapon used in the shooting by Adam Lanza. In all, 26 people were killed by Lanza, including his mother. It is truly a tragedy.
The claim being made is that the weapon was designed for the military and should not be available to the public because it is unsuited for hunting or home defense. This, of course, makes it the perfect weapon for what the U.S. Constitution meant for citizens regarding the right to bear arms. It has nothing at all to do with hunting and everything to do with the tyranny of a government that wishes to run roughshod over the people.
Gun control control freaks believe that if you take guns out of the hands of the people, those who would do harm with guns would either not be able to acquire one, or would be sympathetic to those who are unarmed. I'm serious--these people are either idiots or have something nefarious in mind.
Bill Sherlach's wife was one of the victims in the shooting. "These companies assume no responsibility for marketing and selling a product to the general population who are not trained to use it nor even understand the power of it," Sherlach said.
The same could be said about cars--should Ford be responsible for a car that kills another individual based upon poor driving skills of the person behind the wheel?
But these families have money that can be made from this, although no amount has been specified. It may simply be based upon their anger over the tragedy, and that remains to be seen if damages are made public.
Adam Lanza was clearly a mentally ill kid. His mother was irresponsible over how she secured her weapons. It's akin to leaving the keys out where the kids can get them and drive the car onto a crowded sidewalk.
We have become such a litigious nation. We sue over everything, it seems.
President G.W. Bush approved a law that protected gun makers from lawsuits over criminal use of their weapons--there are, of course, some exceptions to the law.
It just seems wrong to sue the manufacturer of a product that's misused by an individual when the people responsible for providing oversight of that product are remiss in their responsibility.
Tweet
The claim being made is that the weapon was designed for the military and should not be available to the public because it is unsuited for hunting or home defense. This, of course, makes it the perfect weapon for what the U.S. Constitution meant for citizens regarding the right to bear arms. It has nothing at all to do with hunting and everything to do with the tyranny of a government that wishes to run roughshod over the people.
Gun control control freaks believe that if you take guns out of the hands of the people, those who would do harm with guns would either not be able to acquire one, or would be sympathetic to those who are unarmed. I'm serious--these people are either idiots or have something nefarious in mind.
Bill Sherlach's wife was one of the victims in the shooting. "These companies assume no responsibility for marketing and selling a product to the general population who are not trained to use it nor even understand the power of it," Sherlach said.
The same could be said about cars--should Ford be responsible for a car that kills another individual based upon poor driving skills of the person behind the wheel?
But these families have money that can be made from this, although no amount has been specified. It may simply be based upon their anger over the tragedy, and that remains to be seen if damages are made public.
Adam Lanza was clearly a mentally ill kid. His mother was irresponsible over how she secured her weapons. It's akin to leaving the keys out where the kids can get them and drive the car onto a crowded sidewalk.
We have become such a litigious nation. We sue over everything, it seems.
President G.W. Bush approved a law that protected gun makers from lawsuits over criminal use of their weapons--there are, of course, some exceptions to the law.
It just seems wrong to sue the manufacturer of a product that's misused by an individual when the people responsible for providing oversight of that product are remiss in their responsibility.
Tweet
No comments:
Post a Comment