Hillary lies…it’s not exactly a news flash. On the contrary, based on the liberal media’s reaction to her Benghazi testimony, her willingness to lie, brazenly, is a positive virtue. So I wasn’t surprised to see this, when I got home from shooting my AR-15 at a local range:
Let’s take that apart:
The NRA basically represents manufactures and the sellers.
No, the NRA represents firearm owners and others who want to preserve our constitutional rights. And, by the way, the NRA’s approval rating is 50% higher than Hillary’s.
One of the most outrageous votes that I ever had to take when I was in the Senate was an NRA bill to give immunity to gun manufacturers and sellers for just about everything.
She is talking about the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. It doesn’t give immunity to gun manufacturers for “just about everything,” but rather, subject to various exceptions, for “the criminal or unlawful misuse of a [firearm].” So if a criminal shoots you with a Ruger pistol, you can’t sue Ruger.
It was unique. No other industry in America has anything like it.
Liberals haven’t threatened to bankrupt any other industry by bringing frivolous lawsuits. If someone hits you with a baseball bat, you can’t sue Louisville Slugger. If you try, you will be laughed out of court. The law with respect to guns is the same as with regard to other products: if a gun is defective and you are injured as a result, you can sue.
And it’s basically an NRA gift to gun manufacturers and gun sellers.
Liberals compulsively attribute mystical powers to the NRA. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act passed the Senate 66-32 with the support of 13 Democrats, including Harry Reid. It passed the House 283-144, with the support of 59 Democrats. NRA stooges all? Apparently so.
It’s wrong and we have to stand against it. We have to fight to repeal it.
Why is Hillary making a big deal out of the Protection of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act? Because Bernie Sanders was one of the 59 House Democrats who voted for it.
Everybody in this country should be responsible and accountable for their actions and that includes manufacturers, gun sellers, and the NRA.
Gun manufacturers are accountable for their actions in the same way as everyone else: if they sell a defective and unreasonably dangerous product, they are liable. But what about the NRA? How are they supposed to be “responsible and accountable for their actions”? Is Hillary suggesting that victims of gun violence should be able to sue the NRA? Apparently so. Such a proposal would of course be unconstitutional, as well as untenable under any sane theory of tort law. What would the corollaries be? Anyone who is injured by a criminal–any criminal–can sue the ACLU? Citizens whose electric bills go up can sue the Sierra Club?
The possibilities are endless. Goodbye, First Amendment. Well, what the heck, if we are writing off the Second Amendment, we may as well do away with the First, too.
We expect a considerable amount of dishonesty and demagoguery from Democratic politicians, but Hillary is rapidly separating herself from the pack.
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.