Posted on 08/01/2005 7:44:15 AM PDT by 2nd amendment mama
I'm not a member of the National Rifle Association. It's never furnished me with a dime, and I don't expect any campaign contributions anytime soon.
That should make me unique because, to hear media accounts, I must be the only person in America who isn't on the NRA payroll yet agrees with the bill the Senate passed Friday banning frivolous liability lawsuits against gun companies.
There are several reasons those lawsuits irritate me. The first developed about 10 years ago in Nevada when a burglar broke into our house one night when I was at work, and my wife was home with our 2-year-old daughter. Fortunately, the burglar left when he encountered a flimsy interior house door, closed by a lock easily opened with an ordinary credit card.
A few days later we purchased what could only be described as cheap handguns: a .38-caliber revolver and a smaller .25-caliber pistol. Neither are considered ideal for home defense, but my wife felt comfortable with them and the cost to purchase or practice with them didn't break our small budget.
The guns we bought are exactly what the anti-gun lobbies have tried for years to ban. Their attempts, though, are at odds with the fact most Americans don't want government in their gun cabinets anymore than they want government in their bedrooms. According to a Harris poll last year, support for more gun control has dwindled from 76 percent of Americans in 1998 to only 57 percent in 2004.
Democrats discovered that the hard way in 2000 when Al Gore ran for president on a gun-control platform yet, even in pro-union states, lost critical votes over the issue. John Kerry wised up by masquerading as a goose hunter in Ohio during the 2004 campaign. However, given his voting record, few believed him.
The same has been true of most other elected officials who have tried to pass laws that, in effect, would have made the guns my family purchased unavailable or prohibitively expensive.
Enter the lawyers. Using costly "junk lawsuits," anti-gun groups have turned to the courts to try driving gun companies out of business with shakedown lawsuits.
Is that fair? Consider the logic. Your husband is run down by a drunk driver so you file a lawsuit against ... Toyota? Your son is attacked by someone using a baseball bat so you sue ... Louisville Slugger? Your daughter is propositioned on the Internet so you hire a lawyer to take down ... Dell?
As much as I'd like to see Britney Spears sued for influencing teen fashion, it won't happen. Yet if a criminal shoots someone, or a gun dealer makes an illegal sale, the typical response has been to sue the manufacturer instead of the dealer or the criminal.
It should be noted that all U.S. gun makers combined would not qualify as a Fortune 500 company, yet it's cost them an estimated $200 million to fight these cases. Furthermore, gun companies will remain liable for defective product lawsuits and other legal action.
The Senate even managed to work together. It passed the bill 65-31, with 14 Democrats including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid voting "Yes." Final action in the House is expected when Congress reconvenes in September, and the bill will certainly be signed into law by President Bush.
The Senate also showed good sense by approving an amendment requiring child safety locks be sold with all handguns.
Some are spinning Friday's vote as inappropriate because the Senate took up the issue instead of voting on a defense authorization bill. However, Bush already indicated he would not sign any defense bill to which Congress insisted on attaching restrictions on how U.S. troops interrogate prisoners - something Congress seems likely to want.
Instead, the Senate struck a blow for sanity and in the process made another move toward limiting our lawsuit-crazed culture. This is one of the truly big issues facing the nation (medical malpractice insurance is a leading issue affecting our health care system).
Friday's vote was just one step toward tort reform but it showed the Senate is capable of limiting wildly-fired lawsuits and replacing them with legislation - such as child-locks - which hit the target.
Mark Lenz, editor of The Daily Telegram, can be contacted at 265-5111, ext. 230, or via e-mail at mlenz@lenconnect.com.
Agree.....a real keeper !
Good news!
One minor problem: Requiring the sale of trigger locks is a regressive tax. You are adding to the price of a handgun purchase. The poorer one is, the bigger the bite from the cost of the mandated lock. (Trigger locks are also dangerous, but that's another matter.)
Grishom's book was about tobacco lawsuits, the screenwriters made it a gun control screed.
Just as bad
If you'll note - I did say that I didn't agree with that part of the bill.
I agree and look at all the so called Republicans and conservatives who signed on. Santorum voted with Kennedy and Clinton and Schumer AGAIN. It's no longer a surprise when he votes for garbage like this.
probably, I couldn't finish the book, too tedious.
I know of one case where the gun manufacturer was held liable for manufacturing a defective product. it was an excellent decision, too.
And that's the only way they should be sued! Not for the criminal use of a legal product.
btt
Other than the 4+ million members of the NRA, and the several more millions who say they are members, but aren't, and the millions more who support the Second Amendment but aren't NRA members and do not say they are.
First they came my gun, than they came for me !
Well, not exactly - unless the government is getting the revenue from the trigger lock. Still, I think with the other benefits of the bill that's a minor tradeoff.
Santorum strayed from Kennedy and company on this bill and its amendments on nearly every vote, and this amendment was hardly a poison pill and it didn't alter the underlying bill's existing provisions.
I see you aren't even being creative with your lies anymore about Santorum and doing so outright on this thread. Your portrayal of Santorum as voting regularly with Kennedy and his ilk is as dishonest as it gets.
It's really amazing how you can bring up Santorum all the time and find any reason, exaggerated or outright lying, to attack one of the most reliable conservatives who has in the past and to this day been attacked ruthlesstly by the left and its allies in the media for standing up for what he believes - and you call him a liberal sellout. You are dishonest, and you are a troll trying to create discontent where there should be none. As I have said before, if you are not an operative of the DNC you might as well be - you serve the same purpose and accomplish their mission better than any paid operative could ever hope to accomplish.
The guns we bought are exactly what the anti-gun lobbies have tried for years to ban. "
That's exactly the kind of 'first gun' that I've seen most people buy purchase -- meaning those folks who haven't been handed down an heirloom.
Ask gun store proprietors, and they'll tell you the same thing. There's something about cheap featureless handguns that comforts a first-time buyer, namely those who've had something recently happen to them prompting a visit to a gun store.
It's the wrong thing to do for those who have means to afford better.
They can require them sold all they want, but they can't prevent me from throwing one in the trash before I walk out of the store. I will not fool with a gun lock when time is of the essence. I choose to teach my children the dangers of guns, to respect the fact that they can kill you, and to never bother one until they get old enough.
Santorum voted with Kennedy and Clinton and Schumer AGAIN. It's no longer a surprise when he votes for garbage like this.
To which you blathered: Santorum strayed from Kennedy and company on this bill and its amendments on nearly every vote, and this amendment was hardly a poison pill and it didn't alter the underlying bill's existing provisions.
Hmmm. Why would you say that he 'strayed'? That implies that you agree with me and that he does vote with the left. What does mandatory trigger locks have to do with gun makers not being sued for misuse of their products? This amendment, if it passes the conference committee and final vote is an added cost to gunowners and a detriment to their safety. The bill wasn't going to die without this amendment, so why did Mr Reliability feel the need to intrude on the rights and safety and wealth of gun owners?
I see you aren't even being creative with your lies anymore about Santorum and doing so outright on this thread. Your portrayal of Santorum as voting regularly with Kennedy and his ilk is as dishonest as it gets.
I don't care if Santorum votes with the likes of Clinton, Kennedy, and Schumer twice a year, it's too many times. When did any of them ever vote for anything good for America?
As for who is lying, ( o ), did Ricky vote for the trigger locks or didn't he? Like I said, I don't know how many times he's gone with that crowd, but it's happening with greater frequency, not less.
It's really amazing how you can bring up Santorum all the time and find any reason, exaggerated or outright lying, to attack one of the most reliable conservatives who has in the past and to this day been attacked ruthlesstly by the left and its allies in the media for standing up for what he believes - and you call him a liberal sellout.
Why is it amazing? We're talking about a gun bill and the amendment requiring trigger locks was brought up. Santorum voted for it with all of the leftists. You may want to hide your head up your ass and ignore his rotten votes and increasingly rotting record of votes and behavior, but I won't.
You are dishonest, and you are a troll trying to create discontent where there should be none. As I have said before, if you are not an operative of the DNC you might as well be - you serve the same purpose and accomplish their mission better than any paid operative could ever hope to accomplish.
And you are a lying asshole party hack with his head up his ass willing to ignore a man who ONCE was pretty damn good and is now a virtual piece of crap. I point out the missteps of politicians and you think that I am a DNC operative. I suppose that if I told you your house was on fire, you'd accuse me of setting it. I've been pointing out for almost a year and a half that Ricky's behavior and votes has jeopardized his reelection. I have called for him to be bumped upstairs somewhere to avoid an embarrassing loss. Back then no one wanted to believe me. Now, Ricky can't break 40%. He has never been down this far. Call me names if you want. Ignore my warnings if you want. It doesn't change the facts.
Me a troll? Yeah, right. I have a 7 year history with FR starting with the March For Justice. Those here who matter know me well enough to know that I am not a troll. I just don't tolerate lying pandering pols, no matter what their stripe and no matter what their history. If you sell us out once, you'll do it again.
When do you say enough is enough? Apparently you have a greater tolerance for getting screwed over than I do. Put your kneepads back on and go back to doing whatever it is you do when your on your knees in front of a politician.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.