Posted on 11/02/2016 4:40:50 AM PDT by Kaslin
It’s no news that Hillary Clinton is against guns (except those in the hands of people who protect the high and mighty) and enthusiastically in favor of restricting gun owners. When it gets down to specifics, her position does become vague, with some exceptions. One of those exceptions stands out only because of its obscurity.
Hillary really, really, wants to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The PLCAA essentially protects gun manufacturers and gun dealers from being sued unless, well, they have done something wrong. It’s a perfectly simple standard that would apply in any other field of human endeavor.
The reason for the PLCAA’s enactment was simple. As law professor Timothy Lytton wrote, before PLCAA was enacted: “By 2000 gun litigation was regularly front-page news, and manufacturers faced potentially bankrupting industrywide liability exposure as a result of suits by dozens of individual victims, over thirty cities, and the State of New York.” These suits were based upon various elaborations of the argument that “guns are used in crime, and so gun manufacturers should pay for what criminals have done.” Some sought to impose liability even where no one could prove what gun criminals had used: the theory was that all gun makers should pay for all gun crime, in proportion to their annual production level.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Can you say hypocrite? I knew you could.
Lord, help us.
This woman could provoke a civil war, in addition to the one she’s trying to gin up in Syria.
A wise boss once told me that as a manager I should never make a rule that I know will be flouted. To do so, he said, undermines your authority for everything. Only make rules that are definitely and obviously needed for real and obvious reasons. And, only make those rules that are without question within your preview.
Gun control by fiat with no by-in from the public will destroy the moral authority of government to govern. The government, in theory, at least, is supposed to work for us.
What will they do with the millions of new criminals?
Already happened in several states. New York, California, New Jersey, Maryland, Connecticut.
Of course, the District of Columbia.
Your boss was indeed wise.
I believe, as free men, that we are expected not to follow unconstitutional laws. If the corrupt supreme court, rules some nonsense about guns that forces / allows gun registration or removal from free men, then I will not comply.
Thankfully, that witch’s future is not the Presidency - ever. That destiny in Trump’s. Her destiny is more along the lines of Leavenworth.
And people think the Supreme Court isn’t dangerous for that reason?
I don’t think that will work out too well.
I miss the rule of law!
Pray for a Trump victory.
They want to take guns from the non-violent, honest people and deliberately leave them in the hands of violent criminals.
Because they want the “oppressed” to waltz right in and take what they want from their “oppressors”.
Yes.
In a recorded audio speaking on the 2nd amendment she said:
“The idea that you can have an open carry permit with an AK-47 over your shoulder walking up and down the aisles of a supermarket is just despicable,”
AND, then there’s this.......
“Recently Australia managed to get away, or take away,
tens of thousands, millions, of handguns. In one year
they were all gone. Can we do that? If we can’t, why
can’t we?” an attendee at a New Hampshire campaign
event asked Clinton.
“I think it would be worth considering doing it on
the national level, if that could be arranged,” the
White House hopeful replied, embracing not only a
mandated national buyback program but getting rid
of handguns in the United States.
Hillary Clinton is the candidate for president who believes that the people's rights are subject to regulation by the government.
Our founders established a government whose sole function was to protect the people’s inherent rights. A candidate who takes the decision that inherent rights protected from government interference are subject to government regulation clearly does not respect the people or the people’s rights.
“If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.”
—Thomas Jefferson
NOTE:
...I should have said - “commonly attributed to Thomas Jefferson”. While it does not appear in any of his writings which I have in my possession, it is often attributed to him, and it certainly represents his beliefs on the issue.
And then there is this, which I think is particularly apropos given the racist roots of the “gun control” movement in this country:
“One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”
—Martin Luther King, Jr. - Letter from Birmingham Jail
I have a friend who lives in Australia. SHE lives on a horse breeding ranch & her nearest neighbor is about 25 minutes away.
She has had so many prowlers that she finally found 3 of the meanest dogs she could find for protection.
She is in danger alot of the time & she is a long way out for police to come to her aid.
She is very upset about the ban on guns in Australia. One of her neighbors has learned to use a corssbow for protection!!!
Any wonder why the EUREKA FLAG is becoming popular in Australia again?
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.