Drizzt
Member
University Wire
April 23, 2003, Wednesday
SECTION: EDITORIAL
LENGTH: 645 words
HEADLINE: Guns deserve accountability
BYLINE: Staff Editorial, Daily Forty-Niner
SOURCE: California State U.-Long Beach
DATELINE: Long Beach, Calif.
BODY:
The U.S. Constitution is second only to the Bible when it comes to texts that Americans hold sacred. We rely on the strength of the Constitution to protect us against inequality, tyranny and other potential social evils. The most substantial and universally accepted purpose for our Constitution is to protect our freedom -- freedom to do what continues to be debated.
The U.S. House has recently passed legislation that would block most lawsuits against the gun industry for harm caused my misuse by others of firearms or ammunition. This legislation is has been sent to the Senate and has "healthy prospects for approval," the Sacramento Bee reported.
California's Democratic Sen. Diane Feinstein is leading the effort to filibuster the legislation.
"I believe this legislation would give the gun industry special treatment at the expense of innocent Americans who have been harmed by irresponsible actions by firearm manufacturers and dealers," Feinstein said. "No other industry has this kind of blanket protection against liability."
We sue cigarette companies for legally selling us cigarettes that cause cancer. Does the same logic not apply to gun companies that legally sell us guns that cause death?
If this legislation passes, the same logic will not apply to both guns and cigarettes. So people who willingly inhale death could continue to sue and those who are victims of another person's bullet will have no ability to gain compensation.
"These lawsuits are not brought by individuals seeking relief for injuries done to them by anyone in the industry," chief sponsor of the legislation, Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, told the Sacramento Bee. "Instead, this is a politically inspired initiative trying to force social goals through an end run around the Congress and state legislators."
Forcing social goals like ending smoking through our legal system is completely acceptable. The gun issue is a little trickier, mostly because of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment provides an ambiguous protection for citizens to own firearms. Cigarettes are never mentioned.
The Second Amendment states: "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Some interpret this statement as meaning that we have the right to own firearms if we come under attack and have a need for Militias. Others believe that this statement means we have the right to shop at the mall armed to the teeth if we so desire. Still others believe that times have changed since the Constitution was written and so should some of our laws.
The real issue in this debate seems to be whether or not victims of gun violence have the right to sue gun companies. Lawmakers appear to gravitate toward one side or other of this debate based on where they stand on the gun control issue even though this proposed bill does not directly affect gun control.
"Their only success is placing an enormous financial burden on gun manufacturers," Rep. Brad Carson, D-Okla., told the Sacramento Bee. "These litigation costs are passed on to owners and make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to own guns."
What's wrong with making it difficult to own a weapon? Maybe if it had been more difficult, the Washington, D.C. area snipers may not have been able to waste life so easily. It is much harder to pull off a drive-by stabbing.
Hopefully Feinstein will successfully filibuster this bill. There is nothing wrong with holding companies that manufacture the potential for death to be held accountable in some situations. This has been proven by the numerous cases against the tobacco companies. Allowing for possible law suits simply forces gun companies to use more caution when distributing weapons to our fellow citizens.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, he admits that the purpose of the lawsuits isn't because the gun companies actually may be liable, but as a means of enforcing social change that they could not bring about through other means, and is OK with it? How can some of these people make peace with their conscience? It's OK to lie?
April 23, 2003, Wednesday
SECTION: EDITORIAL
LENGTH: 645 words
HEADLINE: Guns deserve accountability
BYLINE: Staff Editorial, Daily Forty-Niner
SOURCE: California State U.-Long Beach
DATELINE: Long Beach, Calif.
BODY:
The U.S. Constitution is second only to the Bible when it comes to texts that Americans hold sacred. We rely on the strength of the Constitution to protect us against inequality, tyranny and other potential social evils. The most substantial and universally accepted purpose for our Constitution is to protect our freedom -- freedom to do what continues to be debated.
The U.S. House has recently passed legislation that would block most lawsuits against the gun industry for harm caused my misuse by others of firearms or ammunition. This legislation is has been sent to the Senate and has "healthy prospects for approval," the Sacramento Bee reported.
California's Democratic Sen. Diane Feinstein is leading the effort to filibuster the legislation.
"I believe this legislation would give the gun industry special treatment at the expense of innocent Americans who have been harmed by irresponsible actions by firearm manufacturers and dealers," Feinstein said. "No other industry has this kind of blanket protection against liability."
We sue cigarette companies for legally selling us cigarettes that cause cancer. Does the same logic not apply to gun companies that legally sell us guns that cause death?
If this legislation passes, the same logic will not apply to both guns and cigarettes. So people who willingly inhale death could continue to sue and those who are victims of another person's bullet will have no ability to gain compensation.
"These lawsuits are not brought by individuals seeking relief for injuries done to them by anyone in the industry," chief sponsor of the legislation, Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, told the Sacramento Bee. "Instead, this is a politically inspired initiative trying to force social goals through an end run around the Congress and state legislators."
Forcing social goals like ending smoking through our legal system is completely acceptable. The gun issue is a little trickier, mostly because of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment provides an ambiguous protection for citizens to own firearms. Cigarettes are never mentioned.
The Second Amendment states: "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Some interpret this statement as meaning that we have the right to own firearms if we come under attack and have a need for Militias. Others believe that this statement means we have the right to shop at the mall armed to the teeth if we so desire. Still others believe that times have changed since the Constitution was written and so should some of our laws.
The real issue in this debate seems to be whether or not victims of gun violence have the right to sue gun companies. Lawmakers appear to gravitate toward one side or other of this debate based on where they stand on the gun control issue even though this proposed bill does not directly affect gun control.
"Their only success is placing an enormous financial burden on gun manufacturers," Rep. Brad Carson, D-Okla., told the Sacramento Bee. "These litigation costs are passed on to owners and make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to own guns."
What's wrong with making it difficult to own a weapon? Maybe if it had been more difficult, the Washington, D.C. area snipers may not have been able to waste life so easily. It is much harder to pull off a drive-by stabbing.
Hopefully Feinstein will successfully filibuster this bill. There is nothing wrong with holding companies that manufacture the potential for death to be held accountable in some situations. This has been proven by the numerous cases against the tobacco companies. Allowing for possible law suits simply forces gun companies to use more caution when distributing weapons to our fellow citizens.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, he admits that the purpose of the lawsuits isn't because the gun companies actually may be liable, but as a means of enforcing social change that they could not bring about through other means, and is OK with it? How can some of these people make peace with their conscience? It's OK to lie?
