In the May 2000 issue of Texas Fish & Game magazine, I wrote an editorial challenge to the sue-happy pinheads using the courts to harass gun makers, and dared the “think of the children!” demagogues to go after the liquor industry.
That editorial carried a message suitable and relevant to the hypocrites, power mongers, and governmental slime using the Connecticut school shooting to launch fresh violence against the Constitution in general and Second Amendment in particular.
I therefore re-present A Challenge to the Gun Suers, with a note to keep in mind the statistics and some facts therein are 12 years out of date.
In 1999, a significant era in America’s history ended and a proud tradition was lost when Colt’s Manufacturing Company announced it was going out of the consumer firearms business. Colt was the first major player to fall prey to the latest stratagem of citizen disarmament proponents–civil lawsuits.
Following closely on the heels of successful anti-tobacco lawsuits by city, state, and federal governments, the same entities turned the extortive tactic on gun manufacturers. In 2000, Smith & Wesson caved to the Clintonista regime and signed a deal with the devil. Under the agreement, S&W will impose an egregious “code of conduct” on its dealers and distributors. Trust me, the atmosphere of your favorite gun or sporting goods store is about to change dramatically, and not for the better.
The political entities claim that the purpose of the suits is to recoup financial loses associated with costs stemming from the use (misuse?) of the defendants’ products. The truth of that claim is dubious at best, but let’s be charitable and assume it is true–for if it is true, I hereby issue a challenge to those political entities:
Sue the liquor industry.
According to data compiled by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 41,471 people died in alcohol-related traffic accidents nationwide in 1998–that’s nearly 10,000 more than the number of alleged “gun victims.”
The cost of treating alcohol-related crash victims runs about $51 billion annually, another $60 billion for other alcohol-related violence, and $24 billion to treat alcohol-related illness and abuse. That is $135 billion annually, a very large chunk of which comes from taxpayer coffers.
Once the politicos wring their money out of the booze mongers, they can go to work solving other alcohol-related social ills. To aid in this effort, I offer the following modest proposals.
Alcohol is far too easy for minors to get their hands on. Social workers deal with teenage alcoholics on a daily basis. Who knows how many teenage pregnancies result from over-imbibing at a beer bust. Ergo, any person who allows a minor access to alcohol shall be charged with a Class A Misdemeanor. If said minor is involved in a crime or accident while under the influence, the alcohol provider shall be charged with a felony. All alcohol must be kept under lock and key to prevent minor access. No alcohol or related product may be packaged or advertised in a manner attractive to minors.
There is no control to block drunk-driving offenders access to alcohol. Merely taking away a driver’s license does not stop anyone from driving or drinking, it just means they cannot do the former legally; but what does that matter if driving while intoxicated is already illegal? Therefore, all sellers of alcohol must conduct a background check at time of sale to ensure that the purchaser is not a DWI or other alcohol-related offender. To prevent “straw purchases” and reduce the amount of alcohol on the streets, no individual may purchase more than one gallon of combined alcohol products per calendar month. As an aid to enforcement, all liquor containers must be indelibly marked with a serial number, and the number recorded along with the purchaser’s ID at time of sale.
Will anyone rise to the challenge and sue the liquor industry? Not likely. Even Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) wouldn’t touch this with a borrowed 11-foot pole. When asked if MADD would endorse or support such a move, National Public Relations Director, Tresa Hardt, said: “We have no position on that at this time, and it is not on our radar screen for the future.”
So, considering the bluster-when-it’s-popular and duck-and-cover-when-it’s-not nature of politics, the liquor industry will remain unscathed by the extortive rush to “justice” government has embarked upon. Besides, what would a political “party” be without cocktails?
Since we are on the subject of sewers, ah, suers, I offer one other modest proposal whereby political entities can line their collective pockets while striking a blow for “public safety.” It is well illustrated by something I recently witnessed–a Corvette torn in half by impact with a tree after the driver lost control during a 100 mph race with a Firebird, narrowly missing a family in a station wagon in the process. What was left of the driver they took away in a plastic bag. Why does anyone need a car that will go that fast? Nowhere in America does the speed limit exceed 75 mph. Manufacturers must not be allowed to sell vehicles capable of exceeding that speed to anyone except law enforcement and government. Meanwhile, should not the manufacturers, distributors, and dealers of high-speed automobiles be held accountable for the carnage their products create? I say sue the bastards!
Think anybody will?
Yeah, when hell freezes over and politicians become honest. –Don Zaidle