alan
April 12, 2003, 05:29 PM
The headline read Bush asks to extend assault weapon ban
Editor:
The above headline sat atop an article by Shannon McCaffery, of Knight Ridder Newspapers, and appeared in today's P-G, page A-7. Having seen the headline, and read the article, one wonders as to the following.
1. Is President Bush interested in a second term, and if he actually is, why this? How much damage to his already damaged chances of re-election, the state of the economy(poor but subject to improvement), his questionable tax proposals, his continuous harping on religion, his penchant for secrecy, might already have been done? Readers might add to my short list as they see fit.
2. Who in The White House might have put him up to this stunt?
Getting back to the article, Ms. McCaffrey writes regarding H.R. 1036, not mentioned by it's number, but it's the bill passed in The House the other day, that would shield gun makers, distributors, wholesalers and retail dealers from frivolous law suits, as are currently in the courts wrote "Gun control advocates say the immunity bill will keep innocent victims of gun violence from getting their day in court".
"The gun industry would become the first to receive blanket immunity if the bill succeeds".
Clarification of these claims is required. "Innocent victims of gun violence", as they are called by the writer should have their day in court, but not at the expense of those who are simply not responsible for what ails them. It isn't Smith & Wesson, for instance, who shot them or some family member, it was some criminal who broke the law. While it's likely that this piece of human trash is "judgment proof" due to lack of money or other valuables, people occupied in a legal business, one that is supervised by agencies of the federal government, and who are duly licensed by same to carry on their legal business operations, aren't by any reasonable stretch of the imagination, responsible for the criminal actions of others, who were completely removed from any semblance of influence or control by gun makers, distributors or retail dealers. By the way, the only "immunity" that the firearms industry might obtain is immunity from phony suits, suits designed to, in the words of those who have brought them, drive these firms out of business. In the case of a DEFECTIVE PRODUCT, something that the auto industry is quite familiar with, though they do seem to have improved their operations, no immunity or protection from suit would be offered. Let's get our facts straight, and keep them that way.
In conclusion, regarding the "soccer moms in the suburbs", who Ms. McCaffrey mentions, looking at the end product that their "parenting efforts" have created, I submit that one would be well advised not to put all that much value in their judgments. Personally, I was never in the "child raising business", so there could be points that I'm not aware of, but looking at what one sees on the streets, the end product of the efforts of some of these "suburban soccer moms", isn't really anything much to brag about. Other than that, would they know an "assault rifle" from a riding lawn mower?
Editor:
The above headline sat atop an article by Shannon McCaffery, of Knight Ridder Newspapers, and appeared in today's P-G, page A-7. Having seen the headline, and read the article, one wonders as to the following.
1. Is President Bush interested in a second term, and if he actually is, why this? How much damage to his already damaged chances of re-election, the state of the economy(poor but subject to improvement), his questionable tax proposals, his continuous harping on religion, his penchant for secrecy, might already have been done? Readers might add to my short list as they see fit.
2. Who in The White House might have put him up to this stunt?
Getting back to the article, Ms. McCaffrey writes regarding H.R. 1036, not mentioned by it's number, but it's the bill passed in The House the other day, that would shield gun makers, distributors, wholesalers and retail dealers from frivolous law suits, as are currently in the courts wrote "Gun control advocates say the immunity bill will keep innocent victims of gun violence from getting their day in court".
"The gun industry would become the first to receive blanket immunity if the bill succeeds".
Clarification of these claims is required. "Innocent victims of gun violence", as they are called by the writer should have their day in court, but not at the expense of those who are simply not responsible for what ails them. It isn't Smith & Wesson, for instance, who shot them or some family member, it was some criminal who broke the law. While it's likely that this piece of human trash is "judgment proof" due to lack of money or other valuables, people occupied in a legal business, one that is supervised by agencies of the federal government, and who are duly licensed by same to carry on their legal business operations, aren't by any reasonable stretch of the imagination, responsible for the criminal actions of others, who were completely removed from any semblance of influence or control by gun makers, distributors or retail dealers. By the way, the only "immunity" that the firearms industry might obtain is immunity from phony suits, suits designed to, in the words of those who have brought them, drive these firms out of business. In the case of a DEFECTIVE PRODUCT, something that the auto industry is quite familiar with, though they do seem to have improved their operations, no immunity or protection from suit would be offered. Let's get our facts straight, and keep them that way.
In conclusion, regarding the "soccer moms in the suburbs", who Ms. McCaffrey mentions, looking at the end product that their "parenting efforts" have created, I submit that one would be well advised not to put all that much value in their judgments. Personally, I was never in the "child raising business", so there could be points that I'm not aware of, but looking at what one sees on the streets, the end product of the efforts of some of these "suburban soccer moms", isn't really anything much to brag about. Other than that, would they know an "assault rifle" from a riding lawn mower?