NY Times Wants To Remove All Liability Protections On Firearms

Now, why do the gun grabbers want to do that?

Don’t Add Curbs on Guns. But Repeal Liability Protections for Gun Makers and Sellers.

As a lifelong sportsman with a personal history rich with shotguns, pistols and rifles, I understand why so many of my fellow gun owners — especially the ones who have been spoon-fed fear and angst from organizations they trust — are hesitant to engage in a political discussion that began long before the actor and Second Amendment activist Charlton Heston equated guns with human dignity and liberty.

Debates about guns seem to get lost in the weeds of our decades-long disagreements, while every attempt at compromise — including the current effort in the Senate — falls short of what is desperately needed.

Does anyone believe that Todd Tanner has a personal history with firearms?

With that in mind, I’d like to offer a suggestion that may anger many of those who hear it but could, with luck, spark a fruitful discussion in the weeks and months ahead: Democrats should stop trying to institute new gun laws. They should side with Republicans and agree to curtail any further attempts to restrict gun purchases, or to outlaw guns that are currently legal.

At the same time, Republicans should work with Democrats to eliminate all liability protections for gun and ammunition manufacturers and anyone who sells guns.

Why in the hell would Republicans work with Democrats on this?

We live in the United States of America, and we should all understand that every freedom comes with a price. In this case, that price is personal responsibility. People harmed by gun violence should have the right to go to court to hold gun manufacturers and sellers legally and financially responsible. (snip)

Unfortunately, this approach won’t save every child, grandmother, parishioner and teacher from the apocryphal bad guy with a gun. As we’re seeing in Congress right now, attempts at a solution prove inadequate to the task. But it would certainly deter the manufacture and sale of semiautomatic assault weapons, and it would help us shift from a culture that produces far too much pain and death toward one where guns are once again mere tools for hunters and target shooters.

The only idea here is to be able to sue gun manufacturers along with gun sellers, both stores and private transactions. Why? To drive them out of business. To stop any private citizen from selling their guns. And, if you’ll notice, Todd Tanner now adds “legally” to the Talking Point, which would hold all those who make and sell guns criminally liable when their product is used in a criminal manner. Or even accidental. Because the goal here is to eliminate firearms from the hands of private citizens. If the gun makers and sellers are out of business there will be no product. No manufacturer will want to legally sell in the U.S. The only ones getting guns will be criminals via a black market. If the gun grabbers cannot legislate guns away directly, they’ll do it indirectly.

This was the NY Times yesterday

What It Took for a Country With a Strong Gun Culture to Give Them Up

…

It’s easy to imagine his mind lingering on Australia. After a bitter fight with rural gun owners and conservative activists, Australia introduced sweeping measures to restrict gun access in the wake of a 1996 shooting that left 35 dead. The reforms were truly comprehensive in scope and included a ban on all automatic and semiautomatic shotguns, stringent licensing and permit requirements, and the introduction of compulsory safety courses for all gun owners, who were also required to provide a genuine reason for owning a firearm that could not include self-defense. The federal government also announced a gun amnesty and federal buyback that led to more than 650,000 weapons being surrendered to the police and destroyed.

It wasn’t just shotguns, but, almost all guns. Of course, only around 35% of the preported guns were turned in. But, Democrat gun grabbers, many of them who own firearms and/or are protected by people with firearms, some that the average person cannot legally own, would have a tough time legsilating them away directly, so, they can do it indirectly with the end of liability.

The post NY Times Wants To Remove All Liability Protections On Firearms appeared first on Pirate’s Cove.