Gun manufacturers protected from frivolous lawsuits

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., still not understanding what it takes to prevent deaths like her husband’s in 1993, voted against the bill. Yet it passed the House, 283-144, and President Bush is expected to sign it.

The bill broadly protects firearms manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits, those which have no basis in law and are brought solely to annoy and financially harm the manufacturers of guns, who have done nothing wrong.

The bill will stifle frivolous lawsuits from groups that believe the manufacture and sale of firearms drives violence in communities. The measure excludes from liability protection those that knowingly sell firearms for the commission of crimes. And, although child safety locks will be required under the new law, gun control advocates are displeased and have vowed to challenge the law’s constitutionality. — The Jawa Report

That makes a good summary. Now, about Rep. McCarthy.

On December 7, 1993, Colin Ferguson boarded a Long Island Railroad train and began shooting at passengers. Six were killed and 19 others wounded. Among the six dead was Rep. McCarthy’s husband, Denis, and her son Kevin was among the injured. When Ferguson stopped to reload, passengers jumped him and held him until police arrived.

Handguns are banned in New York City, and firearms are banned on the Long Island Railroad. So, naturally, none of the law-abiding citizens on the train that day were carrying firearms. Only Ferguson, the criminal, was.

Are you beginning to see the problem with gun control?

What? You aren’t? Okay, the problem is this: Gun control, as it’s generally proposed, takes guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, where they can do the most good, and does nothing to remove them from the hands of criminals, who will always be able to find them on the black market.

Actual scientific research shows that law-abiding citizens are better able to protect and defend themselves and others in emergencies such as this than the police are. Being on scene, they can respond immediately, unlike police, who can only cart away the bodies. Had someone on the train that day been carrying a gun, it’s quite possible no one would have died. Not to mention, law-abiding citizens who carry regularly train more with their firearms, and are better shooters, than the police.

Instead, we have gun control advocates who will stop at nothing less than the total disarmament of all law-abiding Americans, leaving only the criminals armed. That’s right, they want more Long Island Railroad massacres. And all the while they say they are trying to make the country safer.

McCarthy, after the bill passed, said, “I don’t understand this. This is not common sense. This is not protecting the American people.”

Here’s some common sense: No one was there on the train to protect your husband and son that fateful day, because of people like yourself, giving criminals guns and taking them away from everyone else. Wake up! The criminals already have guns, and they’ll continue to get them no matter how many laws you pass. It’s only when the rest of us can defend ourselves from them, that we’ll truly be safe.

Oh, and about that Second Amendment, what part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you understand? The Amendment is there to protect We, the People, from Tyranny, the Government. It has precious little to do with the National Guard. I’ll write more on this later.

One thought on “Gun manufacturers protected from frivolous lawsuits

  • October 26, 2005 at 7:59 pm

    Huh? Gun crime in the UK is rare enough that it generally makes the national news. Lower crime- perhaps not. Lower murder rate, definitely. Lower gun-related incidents, for sure (50 or so gun-related deaths in a year- about a day’s worth for Miami).

Comments are closed.