Should Monica Sue The Cigar Company?
Jan 13, 2016 2016 Election, Second Amendment, Tyranny
Hillary Clinton and the rest of the anti-gun zealots in this nation want the ability to sue gun manufacturers if their products are used in any manner that causes harm. One assumes they mean unlawful harm as I doubt anyone would want a gun manufacturer to be sued for a police officer that shot someone in the performance of his duty.
Regardless what they really want the entire idea is stupid. Firearms are manufactured and sold in this country. So long as the manufacturer provided them legally and they were not in some way defective then that manufacturer should not be held accountable for what the end user does with the product.
This is another overreach by the people who routinely violate the US Constitution. These people are tyrants and they will try everything they can, legal or not, in order to rule over people with an iron fist and they can’t quite do that until they can disarm people and make it tougher for them to get firearms.
How many firearms companies would go out of business if they could be sued because some moron uses a gun illegally and someone gets harmed? How many could stay in business if a legal owner shoots a home invader and the invader’s family sues the firearms company because the product caused harm?
It is moronic to hold the companies responsible in these instances.
The law in place has many provisions that would allow manufacturers to be sued but she [Hillary] wanted the version that allowed lawsuits for improper use of the gun by the end user (Sanders voted against that one and she is attacking him for it). Someone using the product in a manner that harms others SHOULD NEVER BE something a company can be sued for.
For those of you who think this is a good idea let me ask:
- Should Microsoft or Dell be sued if someone uses Microsoft software and a Dell computer to steal identities?
- Should Apple be sued because a person using a cell phone and not paying attention walks off a cliff?
- Should a sports company be sued because a person uses baseball bats to beat the hell out of people?
- Should condom companies be sued because rapists use their condoms when committing rape?
- Should a small appliance company be sued because an idiot used a hair dryer in the tub and died of electrocution?
The obvious answer to these questions is no. The companies did not do anything wrong and the companies did not use its products in a manner that harmed someone. This is just as true for the gun makers.
But guns are scary and liberal bed wetters do not like them so they have to have ways to do it. They don’t like guns so they want to sue the people who make them rather than go after the people who use them illegally.
This is the liberal mind set. It is never the fault of the person who did it. There must be some reason and the blame game begins. No matter what problems people have in life liberals will always find someone or something to blame for those problems. Look at any person in Baltimore picked up for a violent crime and that person has a record a mile long for other violent or gun related crimes (along with drugs) and the joker is still on the street. The problem is not some other thing, the problem is the person who did it and a liberal justice system that refuses to punish offenders.
Period!
But I am latching onto Hillary’s idea here. I think we should be allowed to sue politicians who enact laws and make decisions that harm the public. We should be able to sue the hell out of any politician who does anything that violates the Constitution.
Then we might get some reform in this country.
As for Hillary and suing gun makers, a stupid idea from a stupid person and makes as much sense as Monica suing the cigar company for the harm done to her…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: gun control, Hillary, lawsuits, lies, manufacturers, nra, tyranny
Obama Shaping The Narrative Again
Jun 22, 2015 Political, Second Amendment
Some moron shoots up a church and his racist rants are disclosed. The anti-gun liberals, including the chief liberal Obama, come out in force to push for more gun control.
The tactic Obama uses is to pounce on the event as soon as it happens, to invent the story and then to push that story to his political advantage. While the compassionate among us mourn the loss and search for answers and for the details of what happened Obama invents the narrative and plants it in the minds of people so he can push for what he wants.
During a podcast interview Obama had this to say:
He said it’s important to respect that hunting and sportsmanship are important to a lot of gun-owning Americans. “The question is just is there a way of accommodating that legitimate set of traditions with some common-sense stuff that prevents a 21-year-old who is angry about something or confused about something, or is racist, or is deranged from going into a gun store and suddenly is packing, and can do enormous harm.” CBS
There is no evidence that this man bought the gun. It has been reported that he received it as a present so no gun law or increased background check would have stopped him from getting it. If he got it that way it is likely a straw man purchase and that is already ILLEGAL.
Let us assume Obama knows what he is talking about and the man did buy the gun. He had a felony on his record and was on psych meds. He would have been excluded from buying the firearm so if he did then the background check system THAT THE GOVERNMENT SET IN PLACE failed.
It is already against the law for certain people to buy firearms, it is already against the law for people to buy them for others (in certain circumstances) and it is absolutely against the law to murder someone. So what makes any rational person think that some new gee whiz law will suddenly make all people OBEY those laws?
I also point out that the Second Amendment is not about sporting or hunting, it is about the ability to defend this nation from invaders or from a tyrannical government.
[note]In another article Obama states that most gun owners support the laws he wants. This is a lie and another example of him inventing a story and then pushing it to get what he wants. If most gun owners supported this stupidity it would already be law.[/note]
Obama is setting the narrative so he can get what he wants and that is gun control. And we must keep in mind that gun control is not about guns it is about control.
Obama and all liberal anti gunners want to control YOU. It is important that they take away your means to resist before they run roughshod over you.
Liberals are cowards and they know it will be easier to control you if they disarm you. These people do not want to try to control you while you have the ability to fight back because they will lose and they know it. We showed that once during the Revolution.
Resist all calls for gun control and realize that the real reason so many people died is because a deranged person went to a place where guns ARE NOT ALLOWED and shot people. The people who obeyed that law are dead.
If any one of them had been armed the results would have been quite different. In reality the guy might not have even attempted. You see cowards only go to fight where people are not armed and are unable to fight back.
This is why liberals want to disarm you before they engage you.
They are cowards.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: church shooting, gun control, lies, nra, Obama
Gun Confiscation; Could It Happen In America?
Feb 14, 2013 Political
There is no doubt that liberals do not like the Constitution which they view, as Obama said, as deeply flawed. They hate the Second Amendment and the fact that it protects the right to keep and bear arms, a right that preexisted the document. The Founders protected that right because they saw firsthand what a tyrannical government can do to people.
Liberals love to go after law abiding citizens when some lunatic uses a firearm illegally. The left is more than happy to punish the millions of people who did nothing wrong. Their idea on gun violence would be like solving drunk driving by banning sober people from buying cars. The big difference, of course, is that keeping and bearing a firearm is a right and driving is a privilege so even though banning sober people from owning cars is moronic, it would not be unconstitutional.
What government gives you government can take away. Government allows us the privilege of driving. The right to keep and bear arms is a God given RIGHT. Government cannot take away that which was given by God (absent a valid reason like committing a crime in which case one surrenders the right as a consequence of an action).
Obama has always hated firearms (except those used to protect him and his family). He has never wanted people to have them and has worked to get rid of them. Every time some nut uses a firearm to commit a crime Obama calls for common sense laws to prevent such things. No such laws exist and those laws enacted would only harm lawful owners. Obama seems unable to comprehend the fact that criminals do not obey the law. Obama should be aware of this because all the laws against drug use did not stop him and his Choom Gang from using drugs. Would tougher laws against drugs have prevented little Barry Obama from using pot and cocaine to get stoned with his buddies?
Liberals across the nation have trotted out laws to infringe on the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. In Missouri the Democrats have crafted a bill that would outlaw all firearms designated as assault weapons and all magazines designated as high capacity. People would have 90 days to surrender (render permanently inoperable or remove from the state) all such firearms or face criminal charges (another reason not to have a registry of firearm owners).
I would like to think this bill would not pass but in this day and age the Constitution means nothing to politicians, particularly the progressives/liberals, and government at all levels is becoming more tyrannical. I can only imagine that if this were to pass there would be many clashes between those who try to confiscate and those who say no.
The real danger is that this is an Overton Window. The liberals introduce this outlandish legislation and people revolt. Then they back off to what they really wanted and people say it is OK believing they averted a disaster. It is an incremental approach to banning firearms.
Say NO to this kind of stuff. There are no qualifiers in the Second Amendment that allows government to determine the size or type of firearm or magazine. There are laws that prohibit government from keeping a registry of firearm owners. As an aside, Democrats are willing to ignore those laws while expecting us to believe that criminals (private sector criminals, as opposed to those in government) will follow any law banning firearms, magazines or ammunition.
Many law enforcement officers across the nation are making it known they will not follow any law that infringes on the Second Amendment. This is for federal laws. We need such people strongly asserting that they will not follow state or local laws that infringe.
One such officer is Police Chief Mark Kessler of the Gilberton Borough Police Department in Pennsylvania.
We, as a people, need to stand up and fight the tyranny. We have the soap box, the ballot box and the bullet box. What we choose depends on what government does.
Do you still think government will not deny your rights or confiscate your firearms? Do you think that it could not happen in America?
How would it have played out if those people were organized and fought back? How would it have played out if they were prepared and had in mind that government might confiscate firearms? How would it have ended if they had been ready before the police and NG organized?
The government is preparing. Are you ready and how will YOU respond?
MOLON LABE
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: gun confiscation, katrina, lies, missouri, nra, Obama, rights, Second Amendment
The Modern American Gunfight
Jan 17, 2013 Political
Time to Stand and Fight
The NRA has an ad pointing out that Barack Obama’s children attend a school with armed guards but he refuses to allow the same protection for our children. The White House was upset that Obama’s children were used in such fashion. Funny though, Obama did not mind exploiting the dead children from Connecticut and he certainly did not mind using other people’s kids to push his agenda yesterday when he used his Imperial position to impose gun restrictions.
Here is a new ad from the NRA. It is right on point and it shows many in the media attacking Wayne LaPierre for saying that schools should have armed guards (a position most Americans agree with). It is crazy, they say, to suggest putting more guns in schools (yeah, because right now the only ones that make it there are carried by crazy people).
Keep in mind that the media all attacked LaPierre for his suggestion. That same media fawned over Obama’s proposals. Here is one of those proposals (I agree in principle with the idea here though I doubt this is a federal responsibility):
The president will also push for federal funds for more school counselors and mental health aides and for schools and school districts that want to hire armed and trained security officers CBS News
.
Why is that same media not attacking Obama for providing money for MORE guns in schools? Where are all those who attacked LaPierre for his proposal now that Obama has included that very idea in his package?
This is about advancing gun control. Make no mistake, gun control is not about guns but control of the people. The camel’s nose will get under the tent and pretty soon there will be a push for an all out ban.
It works this way. There is gun violence, the government makes rules that infringe upon those of us who did not commit that violence (while ignoring the fact that criminals don’t obey the law) and then when that does not work they come back and say the only thing that will work is a complete ban.
The time to fight is now. We cannot allow them to violate the Constitution and the other laws that have been passed to protect gun owners and our rights.
As an aside, Obama said that nothing in Obamacare keeps doctors from asking about guns. Section 2716 on page 2308 of Obamacare specifically says otherwise.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: gun control, lies, nra, Obama, socialism, wayne lapierre
Biden To Put On NRA Show
Jan 8, 2013 Political
No, not a gun show which would likely be sold out with long lines. Joe Biden was put in charge of solving the gun violence crisis and he has been meeting with groups that favor some kind of restrictive gun control on the gun owners who have done absolutely NOTHING wrong. <a href="Biden will now meet with representatives of the National Rifle Association (NRA).
Make no mistake; the die has already been cast. Biden knows exactly what he will present to Obama because he was given the mandate along with the assignment. The meetings, particularly with the NRA, are designed to give the appearance that the Obama regime considered all options and opinions. They want to push through their unconstitutional gun grab while telling everyone they talked to a lot of groups, for and against, and this is what they wanted.
Biden, who once famously said that Barack had better not come for his Beretta in an effort to give weight to then candidate Obama’s claims that he would NOT come after your guns, is now working fast and furiously to take our guns away.
For you liberals and other Obama supporters, this means they both lied. Obama assured people that he would not try to take their firearms and Biden told us we could trust the guy. Now they are doing what they said they would not and this makes it a lie.
The people from the NRA will be able to present a very detailed account of what the Constitution says and what the Founders said about individuals keeping and bearing arms. They need to do this because Obama, Biden, and the rest of the gun grabbers have no clue or are deliberately ignoring the Constitution. Regardless, this will fall on deaf ears because Biden already has his marching orders and he thinks he is the smartest man alive (he is a moron).
It matters not what Obama and Biden come up with because it is unlikely any proposed legislation would make it very far in Congress. Besides, no matter what they pass real Americans will ignore any gun grab and will find other ways to arm themselves because gun laws do not keep people from getting guns. No law stops people who have decided not to follow it.
Case in point, by law Congress must pass a budget every year. The House has passed one every year but the Senate has not. It has been more than 1300 days since a budget was passed. This is by design because the first Obama budget was bloated and provided the baseline for all continuing resolutions, should a budget not get passed. In any event, the fact that there is a law that requires a budget has not forced Harry Reid, a Senator who has sworn to uphold the law, to pass one.
No gun law will keep people from getting guns. This has been the case all along as there are over 20,000 gun laws in this nation yet criminals keep getting guns illegally and using them to commit crime. Hell, it is against the law to murder people with or without a gun.
The only thing Obama will do if he passes any kind of gun control is make a whole lot of new “criminals” whose only crime will be to have followed the Constitution.
People will not be disarmed no matter what Piers Morgan, Barack Obama, Joe Biden or any other lying statist does or says. We will not give up our God given right to keep and bear arms.
In other words, if you want them Molon labe, if you are feeling froggy that is…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: barack obama, constitution, gun control, joe biden, molon labe, nra