We are on the slippery slope to the loss of effective access to avail ourselves of our Second Amendment rights.

The guns used in this case were STOLEN from the gun shop in question, they were NOT illegally sold. And just how is it that a manufacturer is held liable when a distributer of their product is the victom of theft?

The manufacturer followed all the guidelines mandated by law, they should not be held responsible for the CRIMINAL use of their product. The gun shop owner was a victom of theft, so just what precept of law holds that he is responsible for actions of the criminals that used the stolen items illegaly?

The parties in question no doubt settled the case in this manner so as to not have to bankrupt themselves in their own defense, but in so doing opened up a whole new chain of events leading, in the end, to the cessation of the availability of legal firearms, as the costs of doing business will become too high to sustain it at a level afforable to the average citizen.

In my jaundiced view, this is yet another end run by the anti-gun lobby to deprive the average citizen of his right to bear arms by escalating the price of guns to that not sustainable by the average citizen. If guns are legal, but unaffordable, the net effect is the same as if they had been banned outright.

The people of this great country had better make themselves aware of what is happening, or they may soon wake up to find themselves subjects, rather than citizens.

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 01:04 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 280 words, total size 2 kb.