The Insane New Push for Gun Control: Sue the Manufacturers

firearms.jpgBy Joshua Krause

There’s nothing inherently wrong with being uncomfortable around firearms, and not wanting to own them. There also isn’t anything wrong with trusting the police to protect you as opposed to protecting yourself with a gun, if that’s your personal choice. But the moment the anti-gun crowd tries to argue that everyone else should be disarmed as well, it becomes impossible to ignore how warped their thoughts really are.

It’s almost as if they don’t understand the basics of cause and effect. They have no grasp on the realities of human behavior, both good and bad. When someone is killed, they’re confused about who the real perpetrator is. They fear the power of inanimate objects, rather than the intent of the people who use them. Everything about how they see the world is just utterly baffling.

If you’re not sure about what I’m talking about, take a look at this new bill that Democratic lawmakers have just introduced.

Democrats are trying to pass a bill that would hold gun makers liable for crimes committed with the weapons that they produced or sold. Passing the legislation will be an uphill battle in a Republican-controlled Congress.

The law would reverse protections by the gun industry granted by the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005, which shields it from litigation over gun crimes.

“If you’re a carmaker and your airbags kill someone, you’re potentially liable,” Rep. Adam Schiff (D-California) told The Hill in an interview. “If you’re a pharmaceutical company and sell faulty drugs, you can be held liable. If you’re a liquor store and sell alcohol to minors, you can be held liable.”

“Why should it be any different for gun manufacturers?” Schiff, one of the lawmakers behind the bill, asked.

Really? How do all those thoughts coalesce in the same brain without causing an aneurysm? It’s madness.

Car manufacturers can be sued when their vehicles malfunction and cause accidents, not when their customers deliberately run people over or drive drunk. Pharmaceutical companies should be sued if a defective product poisons somebody, but not when their customers deliberately overdose on their meds to get high. And how does the liquor store example have any bearing here? Gun manufacturers have no way of knowing which customers are going to use their guns to commit crimes, whereas liquor stores can check IDs to make sure their customers aren’t minors. Gun store owners have to run background checks, but that hasn’t stopped any of the recent mass shootings.

Gun companies should be held to the same standard as every other company. If they make a weapon that spontaneously blows up in someone’s hands under normal conditions, they should owe that person money. They don’t owe the victims of crime a single dime, and hopefully they never will. Could you imagine what kind of legal precedent that would set?

Look at all the objects in your house and try to imagine how each one could be used to deliberately hurt someone. Pretty much all of them right? If this bill became law, then every company that produces and delivers goods in this country would go out of business due to frivolous law suits.

What this bill is really about, however, is not public safety or holding the gun companies accountable for wrongdoing. This is all about finding another avenue for gun control. The gun grabbers have failed to restrict firearm ownership time and time again. No matter what they do, the majority of the public remains unconvinced and the government fails to pass any meaningful legislation. And in their desperation to halt the sale of millions of firearms, they’ve concocted an idea that is completely bonkers.

Fortunately it’s doubtful that this bill will pass, but that doesn’t mean it won’t become a law in the future. For instance, both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have proposed removing the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, and letting the victims of killers sue firearm manufacturers. Think about that. These are the most popular candidates for the Democratic Primary. These are candidates that are suggesting something that is completely insane, and it’s very possible that one of them could be our next president. And if it’s possible for them to be elected to the highest office, it’s also possible that one day, enough like-minded lawmakers could be elected to Congress as well.

The Covert Guide to Concealed Carry (Ad)

In other words, our country is just a stone’s throw away from being run by brain-damaged people. You may think that the people running our government are crazy, stupid, evil, and corrupt now – but, believe it or not, we could do worse.

Joshua Krause is a reporter, writer and researcher at The Daily Sheeple. He was born and raised in the Bay Area and is a freelance writer and author. You can follow Joshua’s reports at Facebook or on his personal Twitter. Joshua’s website is Strange Danger.

Activist Post Daily Newsletter

Subscription is FREE and CONFIDENTIAL
Free Report: How To Survive The Job Automation Apocalypse with subscription

16 Comments on "The Insane New Push for Gun Control: Sue the Manufacturers"

  1. Tort law has always rested on the concept of intended use. If you buy a ladder and it breaks while you are on it and you fall and are injured, you were using the ladder in the way it was intended and the company is liable. What is the intention of a gun? You could claim “protection from harm or self-defense” but really its only function is to kill things. Should this bill find some daylight in the dark hearts of our Congress, the entire platform upon which tort law rests would have be rewritten. This should make all the tort reform screamers very happy, until the day they fall off a ladder and break their back.

    • “You could claim “protection from harm or self-defense” but really its only function is to kill things.”

      Well then I guess I would be using the gun as intended right?!! Self-defense = kill things (the aggressor)

    • I would argue that it is the THREAT of killing that serves to dissuade the criminal (sometimes not) from his intended action. Only when the threat is ignored does the weapon’s intent become to kill.

      A hammer is not generally considered a killing machine. But when you bash someone’s brains in with one, it’s served as one. But not before.

      • I think you’re missing the point of intended use. A hammer is made for the purpose of hammering nails. If you aim a gun at someone, either in self-defense with an intention to use it if such threat is ignored, or offensively with the intent to kill outright, you are using the gun for the purpose it was intended.

        • No, I think I have a solid grasp of what it’s all about. The point was that it’s a threat to kill first, and then a weapon of termination if the threat is disregarded. It’s the disregard that gets the perp killed, not the gun.

          Does that make sense?

          • Robin Raven | January 20, 2016 at 5:07 pm |

            Kinda. 🙂 A gun is nothing but a piece of metal. To fulfill its purpose and intent it requires a human. All the decisions leading up to the point of fulfilling its purpose require humans, so of course humans who have no experience with weapons want to blame the gun… in that we can agree?

          • William Burke | January 20, 2016 at 5:47 pm |

            No doubt about it!

    • Thankyou!
      Intent of free individuals, the foundation of liberty, is the nemesis of tyranny.

  2. Can the victims of drone bombings sue General Atomics? Hope so.

  3. Are cops using guns to dissuade, shooting to disable or to kill when they shoot unarmed people in the back;? Some people could argue that the gun could have dissuaded the potential threat or is it a homicide because the manufacturer did not stress the passive use versus a non-lethal wounding over and above outright homicide; that’s why courts of law are needed to decide what is actually happening, this does not happen when the court refuses to hear the case because the attorney general has decided the cops guilt or innocence by not pressing charges. In my opinion the manufacturers intent is lethal stopping power which is malice of fore thought and the true design of any weapon. And by the way robotic guns do kill people (no human pulling the trigger). Also the lower crime statistics of the present era are due to the large scale placement of cameras not the large availability of legally owned hand guns.

    • “Courts of law” fascinating concept, where would one actually find one of those?
      The “malice of fore thought” arguement is of course an infinite loop. When considering an alternate scenario where for example a lone mother with three children is in her home under attack by several bloodthirsty ghouls. Her only viable means of defense under the life threatening circumstances is effective firepower from an lethal application of well placed high speed projectiles, bullets in fact. However due to some particular color of law the tools she had available were rendered non lethal,denied the right to protect her and innocent her innocent families life, she and her children were brutally murdered.
      Hence the gun or ammo manufacturer was certainly guilty of precise or rather “malice of for thought”. They could in this instance pass considerable liability on to the criminal treasonists that caused such an abuse of right.

  4. I’ll tell you what it’s like. It’s as if they think life is a movie, and they’re the director. If they don’t like the way the scene is going, they think they can just re-write the scene. IN THEIR HEADS. And that that will make the movie turn out differently.

    It’s some kind of weird dissociative disorder, god knows what. Truly bizarre mode of thinking.

  5. Proper use of rope on those seeking to usurp or otherwise infringe unalienable rights would circumvent litigious festering relative application of self defense.

  6. The silver ware makers should be held liable for all the knives and forks they manufacture.
    Same goes for:
    Drug companies
    and probably 90% of everything manufactured.

    BTW: Police are minutes(?) away while your gun is only seconds away.

  7. Tiresome? Hyperbole? No, I’m only explaining how our tort laws are written regarding intended use. Very few people understand tort law so I’m only trying to educate. I believe fully in an individual’s right to self-defense.

  8. Бернар Аганчян | April 22, 2016 at 8:36 am |

    Just a note here, as of now, Bernie is against holding gun manifacturers accountable for crimes commited using their guns, unless proven that they sold those guns knowing of the events to come. In other words, they can be held accountable only if they were involved in the crime.

    Which is -the- reasonable way to go about it. The article is currently misleading of Bernie`s campaign, who in my opinion is the only sane candidate for these elections.

Leave a comment