"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
.com...
Tim Carter wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
... If you agree that gun
dealers who break the law should be liable in civil suits, a law we
already have, you agree with salient point #2. ...

While the website you reference poses item #2 in an inocuous light, and
you
also ignorantly perpetuate the misunderstanding, item #2 does not refer
to
dealers simply 'breaking the law'. There have been numerous lawsuits of
late attempting to sue dealers and gun manufacturers for simply selling
their product which later is used in a crime or accident. ...

If the problem is frivolous lawsuits, then deal with frivolous lawsuits.
Granting a blanket immunity would have the effect of making gun dealers
who break the law not liable in civil suits. The law proposed by the NRA
whackos is a bad one and I'm against it.

Would you mind suggesting language that would cover the entire realm of
'frivolous lawsuit'? Even if you could, which I doubt without blanket
immunity, the political realities make it such that that it makes sense for
the NRA to propose just such legislation as it has...likely any proposal
will get watered down, making it important to ask for more than you might
even wish for in hopes of landing where you want to be. Stupid? Yes, and
it seems a good time to launch into a diatribe against politicians and
lawyers, but I suspect it's really just a good time to bitch about humanity.
But then, what would be the point?


--
Ken Fortenberry