Cool.

[unixronin]

With the specter of an assult-weapons-ban rider safely out of the way, the Senate is once again moving to ban liability lawsuits against firearms manufacturers for criminal use of legal and legally-sold products.  They've even bumped it up ahead of the defense appropriations bill.

Not surprisingly, Dianne Feinstein is incensed.  (Personally, I wouldn't weep in misery if she had a aneurysm over it.)

Comments

[bbullock.livejournal.com]

If they pass that law, they need to pass one allowing people to sue auto manufacturers when people are killed by those driving their vehicles.
Come on! Heads out of asses! Now!

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Uh, either I'm misunderstanding you, or you have it backwards. The gun control lobby wants lawsuits of that kind, as a means to use litigation to drive the firearms industry out of business. The Senate (or a majority thereof) wants to ban them.

But yeah, you're quite right about cars ... and hand tools, and baseball bats, and woodworking tools. The framing for your house was oput up incorrectly? Sue the lumber company for selling the lumber. Your neighbor's kids egged your mailbox? Sue the dairy for selling the eggs.

It's completely absurd, but utterly par-for-the-course for the nanny-state bed-wetter set.

[bbullock.livejournal.com]

Presumably, you misunderstand me. My point is, it is just as stupid to allow people to sue a firearms company whose products are misused as it would be to allow someone to sue an auto company whose products are misused.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

OK, that's what I thought you meant. And in that, I entirely agree with you. Your wording just seemed a little confusing to me.