Hillary Clinton: ‘Incomprehensible’ that Gun Makers Aren’t Liable for Misuse of Stolen Guns

Clinton tweeted: ‘It’s incomprehensible that our laws would protect gun makers over Sandy Hook families. We need to fix this.”

Think about the specifics of the Sandy Hook attack–the AR-15 that Adam Lanza used was legally manufactured by Bushmaster, which is owned by Remington Arms. The gun was legally sold as well and registered to Nancy Lanza, Adam’s mother. Determined to do evil, Adam stole the gun from his mother–along with other guns as well–and shot and killed Nancy in her sleep. He then went to Sandy Hook Elementary on December 14, 2012, where he proceeded to shoot and kill 26 innocents.

So the suit revolved around a gun that was acquired via thievery then misused in the most heinous way imaginable. Judge Bellis found the suit to be the frivolous type from which gun manufacturers are shielded by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), and she dismissed it. Clinton finds it “incomprehensible” that Remington Arms was protected from a suit under such conditions.

Full story: Hillary Clinton: ‘Incomprehensible’ that Gun Makers Aren’t Liable for Misuse of Stolen Guns – Breitbart

And people support this woman for president.

If she gets into office, this is going to open up a lot of industries to frivolous lawsuits. Think about it. If it is allowed for victims of gun violence to sue gun manufacturers even if the gun used was stolen – which is usually is – what is going to stop this from moving into other industries?

Are we going to sue car makers when someone we love is killed by a drunk driver? There’s a double whammy, actually, because you could also sue the maker of the alcohol. If you are super daring, you can sue whoever served the alcohol. A really good lawyer might even be able to sue makers of specific parts in the car, like whoever made the airbags or the seat belts, as well as the maker of the car the person killed was driving.

Will we be able to sue food manufacturers if we get fat and develop illnesses because of such?

How about hospitals? Can we sue hospitals if we are told we have a terminal illness? Or how about if they just treat that illness and we or someone we love still dies from it?

Can I sue the governor of my state because of a hurricane? How about only if I experience floods from a government owned body of water?

Can I sue the governor if I swim in the ocean and am bitten by a shark?

Can I sue the maker of my home if it burns down?

Should I go on? Because we could do this for days.




Comments are closed.