Posted on 10/06/2015 1:01:34 PM PDT by Kaslin
RUSH: Did you see where Hillary Clinton wants victims of gun violence to be able to sue gun manufacturers now? She is promising that if she's elected president she's going to use executive orders to get rid of guns or do something. She's going to use executive orders to manifest some kind of sweeping gun control legislation. Now, following the logic of allowing the victims of gun violence to sue the gun manufacturer, should Babe Ruth have been allowed to sue Hillerich & Bradsby every time he struck out? They're gonna regret that analogy. I guarantee you.
Or, try this. Does that mean that the families of the Benghazi victims will be allowed to sue Hillary? I mean, if we're gonna go out and try to find and be able to sue the people responsible for making victims victims, and in this case Hillary thinks it's the gun, well, then, could the Benghazi victims be allowed to sue Hillary and sue Obama?
Benghazi families have a lot more of a case than the gun manufacturers do. In fact, why didn't Hillary and Obama just blame Benghazi on the gun? I mean, we have four dead Americans. We had terrorists using weapons and guns. Why didn't they blame the guns there? Look, I know it sounds facetious, but I'm being half serious here. If guns kill people, why not blame guns for what happened in Benghazi? Instead they blamed the stupid video that nobody ever saw. You know, when it comes to this kind of thing, look what they do. They blame a video. For what? Creating anger and behavioral problems in a mass number of people who then go out and get guns and start shooting people. Isn't it amazing that when the same set of circumstances here, like take the shooter in Oregon, what did he watch?
What did he see? And where did he watch it and see it that made him want to go get his guns and start shooting people? If it works for Benghazi, in other words, a video, then why doesn't it work in Oregon? Why doesn't it work in North Carolina with Dylann Roof? Why doesn't it work anywhere else? Only in America is it the guns program. It's never the gun's problem in the Middle East.
Well, the gun is never at fault. The left always can find a way to blame people when they want to. When they don't want to blame people, they'll blame the gun, but they're never consistent with this. Why are we bombing ISIS? Why don't we just bomb their weapons? I thought if the weapon is the problem, if the guns -- I don't care what kind of guns, if it's the missiles, I don't care what kind of missiles, if it's bombs, I don't care what kind of bombs, if it's the inanimate object, then why don't we start attacking the bombs and the guns, and why don't we start suing the people that manufacture the weapons that ISIS is using?
No, I'm telling you, I'm being half serious. I'm trying to illustrate a point. Here you have a school shooting in Oregon and right off the bat it's the gun. We gotta get rid of the gun. A shooter is his own kind of victim in the left's world. In the case of Benghazi we had some stupid video maker that nobody ever heard of who supposedly made a video that nobody ever saw, and that was blamed. Even the families of those killed in Benghazi were told it was a video that did it. Not the terrorists. Not the guns. It was the video that did it. And the video is credited with turning rational people irrational and made them go get guns and kill people. And we even found a way to put the maker of the video, the producer of the video, in jail, where I think he still languishes, if I'm not mistaken. Side issue.
If I'm wrong about that, doesn't count against the accuracy rating 'cause it's not an opinion. But regardless, do you see the inconsistencies here, and if you do, do you understand them? In the United States of America the left has a desire to get rid of all guns. So every shooting that happens here is the fault of the gun. If the gun weren't there, the shooting wouldn't have happened, the crime wouldn't have taken place. But in war or in an event like Benghazi, where the administration clearly is to blame and is complicit, weapons are irrelevant in the death of four Americans. No, some innocuous video did it. Well, the only point of bringing this up is to point out the hypocrisy and the intellectual dishonesty of these people to try to illustrate what the real motive is -- and that is a continued drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip loss of liberty and freedom.
Can I sue her? Her ugly face is a “trigger” for me. I demand 10 million for emotional damage and she has to wear a bag over her head.
Maybe the Waco victims under Clinton should pay attention to this strategy? Guns were used there too. Better lawyer up Hillary, Bill and Janet . . .
Is she serious? Nah, even SHE couldn’t be that stupid.
Drawing Hilary into overreaching anti-gun rhetoric now will be helpful in beating her later.
I guess she’ll use her pen and her phone to unilaterally repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act...
So, by this reasoning, if you are in a car accident and hit by a Ford Taurus, you can sue Ford for damages.
Progressives get so giddy while dancing in the blood they get stupid.
Ban them all will be their cry.
Let the voting begin.
The little toe heads they are counting on like guns.
that female dog needs to read this article: http://journal.ijreview.com/2015/07/245635-gun-rights-advocates-have-a-devastating-new-argument-against-gun-control-here-it-is/
If Hillary (hoping to God above she isn’t elected) allows victims of shootings to sue gun manufacturers, then that should also open the door to suing alcohol/drug manufacturers for deaths due to those products as well.
Why stop there, what about car manufacturers? Motorcycle manufacturers? Boats? Hey, sue doughnut makers for high cholesterol deaths! It just goes on and on.
If the Branch Davidians had really had the anti-tank weapons the Clintons said they had then David Koresh would still be alive, wouldn’t he?
In related news, Rosie O'Donuts and Ovaloid Winfrey have jointly initiated a
class action lawsuit against US spoon and fork manufacturers and importerss.
Right ... THEN sue FOMOCO when someone driving a Ford runs you over in the street.
Really??
This half-wit went to law school?
Since we don't have a properly functioning legislature, she just might get away with it.
None of this despotic crap is going to stop until the people STOP it. It won't happen because we ask politely or vote one statist out to let another one in. It won't stop because the laws protecting us are ignored AND violated without consequence. A thinking person can extrapolate from here.
Sue Hillary.
Swear out a warrant for her arrest.
When the right takes over the central communist government all criminals against the state gets arraigned in court.
“she’s going to use executive orders to get rid of guns”
The next dictator of the US? There is no rule of law. If ever there was a reason to be armed, that is it.
The Liberals/Marxists regret nothing. They just move on to another even more absurd proposal. Look at the last 7 years. Questions?
Actually, I think this could work for her. There is precedent with the tobacco settlement. The GOPe Congress would not stop it, and there would be a whole lot of money that could be made available not just for victims, but also for government funding.
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.
