The Left is unforgiving of their own when they locate an apostate in the new church of gun control and none are better at torturing the infidels than the Brady Campaign. Back in the day, when more reasonable thoughts occasionally surfaced in politics, California Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez voted in favor of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) and now the Brady Campaign is holding her feet to the fire.
“Loretta Sanchez is dead wrong,” said Dan Gross, President of the Brady Campaign. “I find it excruciatingly frustrating that she claimed to have ‘fully analyzed unintended consequences’ of the law and saw fit to support it nonetheless. Because of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, victims with legitimate cases, like Hector Adames, are shut out of the justice system. The irony of Sanchez’s defense is that the car companies and hammer manufacturers she invokes actually CAN be sued and victims at least have the opportunity to seek justice. Gun violence victims are often denied even the opportunity to make their case because of the protections Sanchez helped pass.
This is less of an attack on Sanchez herself than it is on the PLCAA, which is the new rallying cry for Hillary Clinton and her anti-Second Amendment supporters. When the Brady Campaign rolled out their attacks on Sanchez, they were sure to invoke the name of Josh Adames, a 13 year old boy who was killed in 2001 as the result of an accidental discharge. The Brady Campaign blames the PLCAA for this particular situation because the family can’t sue the gun manufacturer. Josh was shot by a friend of his who had gotten hold of his father’s Beretta handgun but “was unaware the gun had a bullet in the chamber.” Their incredible claim is that because Beretta had failed to install a feature which would visually indicate the gun was loaded, they should be sued.
At no point does the Brady campaign ask why a parent allowed an obviously untrained child to gain access to a gun. It must be the gun’s fault. Which brings us to the subject of… toasters. While I’ve used this analogy before, it doesn’t seem to be sinking in for some people. If you purchase a properly functioning toaster which regularly produces slices of toast without catching fire, exploding or causing any other damage, you’ve likely gotten yourself a perfectly acceptable appliance. But let’s say you get in a fight with your girlfriend. Afterward, you go draw a relaxing bath and lay back to soak for a while. And now let’s say that your angry girlfriend walks into the bathroom, plugs in the toaster, pushes down the handle and tosses it into the bathtub with you. You’re dead. Do you really think your family should sue Hamilton Beach? After all, they knowingly produced a toaster with live electrical wires inside of it which are exposed to the atmosphere and potentially the water in your tub.
No, because that’s not how toasters are supposed to be used. It’s your girlfriend’s fault. (Or perhaps yours for whatever it was you did to tick her off in the first place.)
It’s also no mystery why the Brady Campaign would invoke the death of a child in this argument, but they seem mysteriously fixated on one “dangerous” product, don’t they? If they were to do some checking they would learn that the number of children who die from accidental poisoning in the home absolutely dwarfs the number of kids being accidentally shot. (It’s the number two cause of accidental death after automobile accidents.) In fact, every day 300 children in the United States ages 0 to 19 are treated in an emergency department for accidental poisoning and on average, two of them die. The most common poisoning agents (after loose prescription medications) are makeup and household cleaning products.
Tell me.. do you see anyone calling for massive lawsuits against Revlon or Johnson & Johnson? For that matter, is the government forcing women to purchase and install expensive, complicated safes to store their makeup in? No, they aren’t. And liberals don’t say a word about it, because this was never about safety or protecting children or any such thing. It’s a back door attempt to shut down the gun industry since they’ve failed to convince the public to do away with the Second Amendment.
The blatant dishonesty and underhanded tactics of the Brady Campaign and anti-gun liberals is revolting. It should be called out in public for exactly what it is.