Saturday, July 30, 2005

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - Is Not Immunity

No special 'immunity'
You can't blame GM for run-down pedestrians.
You can't blame Buck for knife stabbings.
You can't blame Stanley for crowbar beatings.
But you can blame firearm-makers for criminal misuse of firearms.
That's the ruinous exploitation happening right now that must be stopped by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
The act would end a decade of prejudiced and predatory lawsuits designed to put gunmakers out of business.
Gun prohibitionists have failed to get their social agenda from Congress. So they've turned to the courts, where it takes just one activist judge to issue a death sentence for America's firearms companies.
Don't be fooled by phony claims that the act would 'shield' gunmakers or would give them special 'immunity.' The act wouldn't give gunmakers any more protection than any other industry has. It simply would ensure that gunmakers have equal protection from third-party liability that other industries already enjoy. Gunmakers and sellers are still liable for defective products or violating the myriad of laws regulating sales.

Amen brother, the "anti-gun" lobby would have you believe that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act would grant "special" immunity to gun makers -- that is a lie, plain and simple. The act would ensure that an industry, which has both big business and entrepreneurs, would enjoy the same protection and rights as any other business. I will add another example to the list the author shared -- what if a rapist utilized a condom he received via government sponsored programs?
  1. Would he have committed the rape had he not received the condom?

  2. Is the fault of the program that distributed the condom?

  3. Would he government itself be responsible for the rape?

  4. Should we stop all "condom" distributing programs because if the above possibilities?

I am being facetious and chose a program supported by liberals to demonstrate the absurdity of the "special immunity" claim posed by "anti-gun" groups, who are mostly liberal.

No comments: