Connect with us

News

Anti-Gun Activists Attempt To Destroy The Second Amendment With Lawsuits

Published

on

Gun controllers want to destroy the Second Amendment via litigation.

The New York Times reports how the families of those murdered during the Sandy Hook massacre want to pursue similar legal strategies that anti-tobacco activists employed against the cigarette industry.

Gun control advocates hope that like in the case of the tobacco industry their litigation efforts will uncover suspicious activity on the part of the firearms industry, while also changing public perception.

David Wheeler, whose son was killed during Sandy Hook, sees this as an opportunity to expose gun companies like Remington.

Trending: More Americans Now Identify as Republicans Than They Do As Democrats

Wheeler said, “We can find out what the Remington defendants have tried every step of the way to block in discovery.”

take our poll - story continues below

Should Mitt Romney be EXPELLED from the U.S. Senate by the GOP for his vote to convict President Trump?

  • Should Mitt Romney be EXPELLED from the U.S. Senate by the GOP for his vote to convict President Trump?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

The semi-automatic rifle that the Sandy Hook killer used was a Bushmaster AR-15 manufactured by Remington.

Joshua D. Koskoff, a lawyer representing the families, believes that the discovery stage of the litigation progress is “really the most important thing we’ve been waiting to do.”

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is the biggest obstacle for pro-gun control forces who want to use federal litigation to bankrupt gun manufacturers.

Under this law, gun manufacturers are shielded from most legal action when their weapons are used during a crime.

However, gun controllers are getting creative with their tactics.

The New York Times highlights how these families are now shifting gears towards accusing these companies of questionable marketing practices:

In the lawsuit, the families assert that the weapon used in the massacre was marketed in a way — with militaristic and hypermasculine slogans — that specifically reached out to troubled young men like the one who carried out the attack.

BLP previously covered how gun control advocates scored a victory in the Connecticut Supreme Court thus paving the way for future lawsuits against gun manufacturers.

This new angle of accusing gun manufacturers of unfair trade practices will likely be the go-to legal strategy for gun controllers.

The legislative strategy used by anti-gun forces since the Parkland shooting is well-documented. Now they have appeared to come across another means of undermining gun rights by using litigation.

BLP’s reports have shown that gun controllers have taken a multi-prong approach in pushing gun control by using legislative, corporate, and now legal means to move their agenda forward.

Many anti-gun interests understand that conventional means of passing gun control are not enough to make radical gun control a reality in America.

Bypass Tech Censorship!

Facebook, Twitter and Google are actively restricting conservative content through biased algorithms. Silicon Valley doesn't want you to read our articles. Bypass the censorship, sign up for our newsletter now!

Bypass Tech Censorship!

Facebook, Twitter and Google are actively restricting conservative content through biased algorithms. Silicon Valley doesn't want you to read our articles. Bypass the censorship, sign up for our newsletter now!

Have a hot tip for Big League Politics?

Got a hot news tip for us? Photos or video of a breaking story? Send your tips, photos and videos to tips@bigleaguepolitics.com. All hot tips are immediately forwarded to BLP Staff.

Have something to say? Send your own guest column or original reporting to submissions@bigleaguepolitics.com.

You Might Like

News

Did Bernie Sanders Just Endorse a Neocon Regime Change Foreign Policy?

Published

on

Is Bernie Sanders the anti-war candidate that many non-interventionists are making him out to be?

Journalists Jacob Crosse and Barry Grey presented some interesting observations about Sanders’ foreign policy views.

Sanders criticized the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Suleimani in January and also stressed his opposition to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

During the Iowa presidential debate, Sanders loudly boasted, “I not only voted against that war, I helped lead the effort against that war.”

take our poll - story continues below

Should Mitt Romney be EXPELLED from the U.S. Senate by the GOP for his vote to convict President Trump?

  • Should Mitt Romney be EXPELLED from the U.S. Senate by the GOP for his vote to convict President Trump?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

However, Sanders changed his tune when chatting with the New York Times.

The answers the Sanders campaign gave the Times showed its flexibility when it comes to foreign policy.

In other words, the Sanders campaign signaled to the military and intelligence apparatus that Sanders won’t present a threat to their interests and may actually carry out their interventionist agenda.

One question in the survey that the Times sent the Sanders campaign stuck out above the rest.

The third survey question asked, “Would you consider military force to pre-empt an Iranian or North Korean nuclear or missile test?”

The Sanders campaign responded, “Yes.”

Based on this response, Sanders’ is signaling that he’s willing to continue Bush-era policies of “preemptive war.”

Like Obama, Sanders’ opposition to the Iraq War was a matter of politics rather than a principled opposition to regime change wars.

His campaign was also asked, “Would you consider military force for a humanitarian intervention?”

Sanders responded, “Yes.”

Some of the wars that the U.S. carried out in the name of “human rights” have been the Bosnian war and the bombing of Serbia in the 1990s along with the aerial campaign against Libya in 2011 and the Civil War launched in Syria.

All in all, Sanders’ pro-peace/non-interventionist image is at best window dressing.

Under a Sanders presidency, the interventionist status quo will likely stay in place.

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


You Might Like

Trending