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.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

19 Responses to “NY Times Wants To Remove All Liability Protections On Firearms”

  1. The capitalist Elwood P. Dowd says:

    Mr. Tanner is a longtime hunter and firearms owner who writes about the outdoors from his home in Montana.

    Does Mx Teach not believe that?

    Why do gun manufacturers have “special” protections that manufacturers of other consumer products do not? It would be a godsend for insurance companies too!

    An American would be able to keep and bear any arms they wish! FREEDOM! Finally, machine guns could make a comeback.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Rimjob: Why do gun manufacturers have “special” protections that manufacturers of other consumer products do not?

      You mean like Pfizer or Moderna have with their so-called vaccines?

      Bwaha! Lolgf https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

      • drowningpuppies says:

        Pfizer and Moderna are back at it, pleading with the FDA for an expansion of their Emergency Use Authorizations (EUA) for their COVID-19 vaccines. Moderna is requesting an EUA for (1) kids aged 6 through 17; and (2) kids aged 6 months through 5. Pfizer is asking for an EUA to include the administration of its vaccine for kids aged 6 months through 4 years. (Dr. Anthony Fauci has been promoting these vaccines for children since last year.)

        Bwaha! Lolgf https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

        • Professor hale says:

          Pfizer and CDC are still running commercials recommending additional boosters because those first 4 weren’t enough.

    • david7134 says:

      There is no special protection, something the nut job made up.

    • L.G.Brandon!, L.G.Brandon! says:

      Dowd:, “Why do gun manufacturers have “special” protections that manufacturers of other consumer products do not? It would be a godsend for insurance companies too!”

      Dowd you ignorant fuck they have no such “special protections”. Car manufacturers are protected from being liable for deaths caused by their products, as are lawn mower companies, and every other consumer product I can think of. If not every time there was a fatality the manufacturer of the product in question would be sued out of existence. IN fact the only “special” protection I can recall was for the fake non vaccinations inflicted on a gullible public to “protect” against Covid which they failed to do.

      BTW doofus, machine guns don’t need to “make a comeback”, they never left. My best friend and fellow FF owns two, one a Thompson and one an Uzi. They just require special licensing just like a driver license vs. a pilot license.

      You really will go to any extent to reveal your ignorance.

      FJB and the jerkoffs that follow him

      • UnkleC says:

        Pups, David, and LGB are correct, there are no special product protections for firearm manufacturers. If they sell a defective product, just like Ford or Gummint Motors, Apple, or …., the responsibilities are the same.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        Look up The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) from 2005.

        A commenter guts his/her argument by comparing firearms liability to vaccine liability. BOTH have special rules, just as we said.

        Another commenter mentions the special rules for fully auto firearms. Would similar rules applied to semi-auto rifles be Constitutional?

  2. judgeroybean says:

    Eliminate all LIBEL protections from the MSM first.

  3. Hairy says:

    What about RPGs??? Are they covered by the 2nd Amendment?
    IEDs??? How can we hope to fight a tyrannical government without access to legal IEDs???

    • L.G.Brandon!, L.G.Brandon! says:

      Why is the default of the morons on the left to hit the reductio ad absurdum button? It’s like they are programmed to be jerk offs.

      FJB and his jerkoff followers

      • Professor Hale says:

        It’s not an absurd question but it is an obvious attempt by Hairy to make it one. This question has already been asked and answered by our courts.

        The words “a well regulated militia…” refer to the concept of regularizing arms, ammunition and equipment in the civil population so as to be useful and compatible with national and community defense. (Miller). Thus, an IED (I for Improvised) would not be “regular” by definition. Nor would an RPG since those are “Regular” for Eastern bloc countries but not for us. In the USA, we would have the right to keep and bear an AT-4 or Javelin AT missile. But at a cost of $500K, it’s unlikely anyone would.

        It is only absurd of a question to those who don’t know the law, the history, or even the common understanding of plain English.

        Aside: The new modern Army Rifle will have silencers. Since silencers require a special tax in the USA as NFA items because they are not “Regular”, it is high time to revisit that regulation. If the US Army adopts silencers for every weapon, they defacto become Regular and should be exempt from teh NFA tax, according to the logic of Miller.

    • Neither are firearms

  4. Professor Hale says:

    This is the most basic human right. The right to self preservation, followed closely by the right to preserve your family, followed further by the right to preserve your community. If you do not have access to the means, you do not have the right.

    Democrats will make a big deal about granting the right to vote in elections where all the candidates are pre-selected and at the same time deny everyone your basic right to exist.

    Democrats seem to really fail to grasp this basic concept.

    They also seem to fail to grasp the basic concept that Americans are not European surfs who are under the control of feudal lords.

    They also seem to fail to grasp the idea that when you bombard Americans with stories about children being killed by crazy people with guns, our natural inclination is to take up arms to protect our children… not throw away our guns in a forelorn hope that the crazy people will too.

    Finally, they seem to fail to grasp the basic concept that gun ownership was on the decline … until Democrats started working harder to take them away. Democrats (American versions of modern day communists) actually trying to take guns away fulfills everything the conspiracy people warned us about decades ago. Democrats are literally convincing more people to buy guns now because Democrats want to kill them and they need t protect themselves and their families and communities… from violent Democrats.

    If I had to guess at the cause, I’d say it was all about the daily outrage. The media and political activists doing their best to drum up anger and activism because it is good for ratings, good for fundraising, and good for campaigning.

    If you don’t have the right to keep other people from murdering you, you have no rights at all.

    Gun control throughout history has never been about saving life. It has always been about oppression and wanting to prevent the oppressed from fighting back. Gun control in America has its roots is disarming freed black slaves in the South so they could not defend themselves or their communities. evidently, some blacks are perfectly fine in their chains

    • Professor Hale says:

      If democrats were serious about human rights, they would sponsor a bill to distribute surplus Army weapons to the poor and disadvantaged. The rich can afford to buy their own guns and private security. The police have proven over and over that they will not protect the poor. The government solution: Make it impossible for the poor to defend themselves.

      • L.G.Brandon!, L.G.Brandon! says:

        Democrats were tolerable before they became ersatz communists and became dangerous to others. They are no longer amusing and need to be put in their place.

        They call any speech with which they disagree “disinformation.” Thus, their campaign against what they call “the big lie,” that the 2020 election was stolen. While Democrats and some Republicans have fervently resisted the investigations into vote fraud in their states, there is more than enough proof of wide-spread cheating in Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Nevada. Thousands of fraudulent ballots were counted, (Bill Barr shut down an investigation into those delivered to Pennsylvania from NY), drop boxes were stuffed by ballot traffickers, dead voters voted, out of state voters voted, non-existent ghost voters voted, etc. not to mention Mark Elias’ finagling of election law in numerous states and the hundreds of millions Zuckerberg invested in an illegitimate Biden victory. Had the election been fair, it is clear that Trump won Arizona, Georgia and Pennsylvania.

        Bottom line? The Democrat party is now a criminal organization committed only to getting and keeping power. From the moment Trump came down that escalator, the left mind-melded and set out to destroy the man by any means necessary beginning with the hoax that he was a tool of Russia and then that he had colluded with Russia to win. They all knew it was a scam, fabricated by Hillary Clinton but they all – Comey, Brennan, Clapper, etc. — all of them knew it was a lie and they all kept at it. These are malignant, lawless, evil people. They installed Biden in the White House and “they,” whoever they are, are running the country into the proverbial ground. Wake up and fight back, America.


        • Professor Hale says:

          Is one really “lawless” if they are merely “above the law”? Above the law implies that they have a law for themselves that is just different than the laws that apply to everyone else.

  5. Professor Hale says:

    Since the Left has stated their intention to “Sue gun manufacturers out of existence” with incessant frivolous and malicious suits (like they did to Trump and Palin before him), those honest businesses deserve protection from politically motivated “Lawfare”. But it is also a myth that gun makers enjoy a level of protection unlike other manufacturers. If a gun maker makes and sells a defective product or one that causes unforeseen harm, they can still be sued. The current legal protections only protect them from anti-gun activists who want to sue them to death because they can’t get legislatures to ban guns.

    It might interest people here to know that in Virginia, it is a law that horses are a known and predictable risk to own, ride, or even be around. So under Virginia law, you cannot sue a property owner if you fall off a horse and are injured, or if one tramples you, or if a horse lays down on you and crushes you. Those are known risks. Now, if that horse is specially trained by the owner to sneak into your home at night and steal your ice cream, you may have a case. So, this is not unique to guns.

  6. UnkleC says:

    The real problem is an infestation of Democrats.

Pirate's Cove