Saturday, October 01, 2005

Oddball In Society

Maybe I'm an oddball in today's society. I have this strange idea that you should work for what you get. If you follow the news wires you will see a lot of people don't think that way. They figure somewhere along the way someone has wronged them and they should be able to take them to court and receive a settlement that will leave them set for life. If your one of the people that thinks this way there are lots of big organizations out there just waiting to provide you with the legal assistance you need, and share your winnings. The American Civil Liberties Union and the Brady Campaign just to name a couple. I read an article today that caused(the evil side of me) me to start thinking someone could turn the table on the Brady Campaign for this one. The article starts out by saying,"A deplorable advertising effort mounted by the Brady Campaign to Control Gun Violence that warns tourist they might be killed by legally-armed Florida residents is tantamount to terrorism, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) said today." If I'm not mistaken a lot of the money that comes into Florida annually is brought in by tourist.A lot of small bussinesses count on tourism to stay alive. The Brady Campaign could have just signed their death warrent by telling tourist to stay away from Florida. I'm thinking if you were a small business owner in Florida that counted on tourist trade the Brady Campaign should be held resposable for any losses you suffer due to this add campaign. To me this makes just as much sense as suing a gun maker because a gun they made ten years ago was stolen from a legal gun owner and then used to commit a crime.

God Bless America, God Save The Republic

4 Comments:

Blogger Jake Porter said...

As my history teacher pointed out the other day I have never seen a gun pick it's self up and begin shooting people. If you shoot someone then you are responsible, not the gun, the person who sold you the gun (in most cases) or the maker of the gun.

The same way with welfare in our country, many people just want a handout and expect everyone to give them something for nothing.

3:26 AM  
Blogger Always On Watch said...

You're not an oddball, David. But our society, largely because of the media's political-correctness and the emphasis on sensitivity, have crippled the addlebrained into thinking that someone else is going to take care of them.

As to Sarah Brady, I'm sorry about what happened to her husband, and she lives every day with the consequences of her husband's brain damage. But the gun didn't do the damage--Hinckley pulled the trigger. I believe the weapon was .22 caliber. Just tossing in a factoid.

Hinckley's parents financed all his going around the country as he stalked Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. That psycho now wants a girlfriend and longterm release to his parents' custody. His parents' custody? They knew their son had problems and financed his psychotically motivated travels.

Ever seen the info about how crime was reduced in Kinnesaw, GA, when each and every citizen was required to have and train in the use of a firearm? Burglaries virtually stopped!

PS: Sarah Brady is mentally unbalanced. I understand why she is such a fanatic. But why do people listen to her?

PPS: If all guns were eliminated--an impossibility--people use other means to kill. Taking away guns does not instill morality.

9:59 AM  
Blogger The Sovereign Editor said...

Excellent idea. I am always in favor of using our messed up tort system against the people most likely to abuse it. I still think that we should have been able to sue Algore in the 2000 aftermath under a theory of negligent infliction of emotional distress.

In this case, the Brady campaign has committed tortuous interference with business. Their statements are not true. They are unsupported by any statistical evidence. Therefore there is a cause of action here. It could be simple negligence . . . maybe they honestly didn't consider the effect their words would have. However, applying the reasonable person standard (which I actually am opposed to, but since it's a valid doctrine at this time, I will use it), one could make the case that they reasonably should have anticipated the effect their statements would have. This is a fairly straightforward case.

10:05 AM  
Blogger Unadulterated Underdog said...

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with warning tourists about the gun thing. Most people in civilized countries don't cary weapons so this might terrify them. Don't they have a right to know what they are getting into? That's my view.

5:39 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home