Who's responsible?
A while back I saw someone who wanted to make the NRA pay for the medical and funeral expenses of the Las Vegas evil loser's victims. I'm sure he feels the same about today's victims of the evil loser in the Texas church-- or will as soon as he thinks of it.
I guess he's one of those "special" folk who believes the NRA is actually pro-gun rights. LOL!!
But, wait... what is he demanding?
The NRA doesn't manufacture or sell guns. It doesn't encourage evil losers to go out and murder people-- in fact it does quite the opposite as long as you're not a cop or a troop (and yes, it makes exceptions for them, because it loves and worships them with all its shriveled little heart and its fat bank account). The NRA's gun safety programs used to be the big selling point for membership, and safety necessarily includes not shooting innocent people.
The NRA has as much to do with actual guns as Facebook does with breeding cats.
But, if the guy had faced this reality, I'm sure he would have just switched to wanting to force gun manufacturers and sellers to pay the expenses. Or, forcing their insurance companies to pay, if that fails.
And that's just as stupid.
Using a car analogy, as he was doing before running away... If you sell a car and some time later the guy you sold it to (or someone he sold it to) uses that car to plow into a group of kindergarteners, injuring hundreds and killing a bunch of them, should you or your insurance cover the medical and funeral expenses? Or is the evil loser driver responsible for his actions, and should he be held responsible-- or should his insurance company (if he has any) be financially responsible, according to the contract they have with him?
If, after all this, there's simply not a pocket deep enough to cover all the expenses, either get charity to help, or suck it up. Robbing people to pay for something they didn't do is evil. And so is "regulating" guns.
.
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com.
Donations and subscriptions are always appreciated!
It's funny how conservatives would agree with this entirely, while demanding that drug dealers be locked up, based on the damage their customers do.
Bit of consistency please.
Drug dealers are already being "locked up" because its illegal to sell certain types of drugs. This is supported by a lot of different types of people. The NRA didn't have to pay the medical cost because the law doesn't allow for that, at least currently. "Conservatives" are not the only group that would not want the NRA to be held responsible for an act they were not involved in. It would effect a lot more than just the NRA if this were the case. I'm not seeing your point with the need for consistency in thinking and what "conservatives" have to do with the post.
I take it you believe the NRA should be held at least somewhat responsible due to their position on gun control. Why don't you just say that if its the case? I also take it you do not have a love for people you view as conservative. Ok, I can accept that. And it appears you believe the author is a conservative. Are you sure? Am I one? Why is this relevant to you?
I find, and your comment is a case in point, that the word liberal and conservative and many other words are often used as a way to insult and degrade another person or group of people. In addition people like to use them as somehow a reason unto itself for not agreeing with a opinion or position. Was this your intent?
Legality has zero bearing on morality. What other people consume is none of your business and none of government's business, full stop. Prohibition is a crime against liberty, and creates the circumstances for a crime-riddled black market.
Agreed.
To clarify, I'm ancap, so neither conservative or liberal. (Classically liberal perhaps).
I don't use either term in a pejorative sense.
Neither gun dealers nor drug dealers are responsible for the actions of their customers.
We're each responsible for our own actions.
Thank you for clarifying. That's how I see it as well.
Companies can be sued successfully for the direct actions of their employees even if they were not involved. Policies and pre-training can help limit this but they still can be successfully sued. The padora box has already been opened as far as placing the responsibility on someone other than the person who carried out the crime. They only need to move the needle a little more and you will be able to sue organizations/business even if their is no direct connection between the person and the business/organization.
It's a disgusting mess, for sure.
Congratulations @dullhawk! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOP