Evil Democrat Lawyers From Hell

An interesting post from somebody I haven't read before, Smoke on the Water, linking an article about what Clinton planned to do to gun rights.

Here's the actual link from Judicial Watch, which is a great website for what's happening in the world.

Anybody who was paying attention in those Dark Ages known as the Clinton years realized what the evil fatboy was up to.

Look no further than the idiotic assault weapons ban, which basically limited our magazine capacity to ten rounds, mandated background checks, etc. The passage of the Brady Bill had me pretty well convinced the Apocalypse was on us.

The fear of lawsuits under the Clintonistas forced Smith and Wesson to refuse to sell their products at gun shows, and to sign off on the other ridiculous measures set forth in this link. At the time, Smith and Wesson was owned by a British corporation. Since the Brits are halfway to the socialist workers paradise envisioned by Marx, it didn't take them long to fall into step with our own fat little Stalin; Slick Willie. This action drove American gun owners away from Smith and Wesson in droves. It finally resulted in the Brits having to sell off Smith and Wesson. It was bought by some good godfearing Americans, who saved one of the stalwarts of the gun manufacturing industry. However, Smith sales continue to suffer a bit, simply because of a lingering prejudice from caving in to the Clintonistas. God bless capitalism. We can vote with our wallets as well as our ballots.

On the plus side, the Brady Bill probably helped Kimber's rise to prominence in the 1911 world, not to mention increasing interest in 1911's nationwide. When you're limited to only ten shots, might as well have them be nice, fat .45's.

Combine the Brady Bill with a concerted legal assault on the gun industry, and that pretty much tells you what the Democrats are all about, as far as gun rights. Here's ample proof, in my opinion.

So when a Democrat says that he or she is pro-gun, quiz them about the Clinton years. They'll either deny all of this, or state they don't agree with it. The next obvious question is, "why the @#!! are you a democrat then?" I don't think you can be a democrat and be pro-gun. Thus, I'll never be a democrat.

This is another great example of how lawyers can just about ruin anything they get their grubby little paws on. This is the inherent danger of having so many lawyers motivated by greed and/or liberal ideology. They'll use the system to destroy what they don't like. Or they'll milk it for all the money they can squeeze out of it.

This link shows the game plan was just like what happened to the tobacco industry. Any moron knows that cigarettes are bad for the health. Most rational human beings realize that smoking is one's own risk; do it at your personal peril. But its a personal freedom, and liberals hate that sort of thing. Unless it's the personal freedom to murder unborn babies and turn violent criminals loose on the street, of course. Liberals love that sort of thing.

So they attack it through tort law. They create a spurious claim that the manufacturers of the product are responsible for the consequences of its use. Guns can kill people. We all know this. Cigarettes cause cancer, we know that. But what happened to personal responsibility?

Simple. Personal responsibility doesn't generate the almighty dollar, or further the cause of socialism. Responsibility is a direct consequence of personal freedom. You can't have one without the other.

I'm not saying that an attorney shouldn't make money. We have a certain skill set and specialized knowledge that should be compensated, same as any profession. But there's a fine line between making money because of your knowledge of the legal system, and using your knowledge to abuse the legal system in order to make money and/or further a social agenda.

There's a pretty big difference. Suing the guy that shot and killed your family member is probably not a bad thing. Suing the company that made the gun that killed your family member is something else entirely. It's creating some sort of fictional responsibility that simply isn't there. It's equivalent to suing Ford for deaths caused by a drunk driver behind the wheel of an F-150. It's not Ford's fault by any means. It's the fault of the scumbag who got drunk and got behind the wheel of the truck. Mark my words, that sort of lawsuit is coming, if it hasn't happened already.

Most plaintiff's lawyers are Democrats. They vote that way because democrats love lawsuits. It enables them to further their liberal agenda, and it allows them to line their pockets. It's one or the other, sometimes a combination of both. They'll justify it as being all about the injured plaintiff, but it's a hollow argument at best. Every plaintiff's lawyer that represents someone they KNOW is bilking the system will justify it in the same way.

Take a hypothetical case: A rear-ender car wreck, very low impact, and very minimal property damage. When I say minimal, I mean the only thing needing fixing was the bumper to the car in front. And that fixing would consist of buffing out the scratch and repainting, at best. The supposedly injured person had a history of back and neck problems. This plaintiff goes on to claim further back and neck injuries from this low-speed impact. The plaintiff runs up over $10,000 in medical bills. The plaintiff retains a lawyer, who tells the plaintiff what doctors to go see, what sort of treatment plaintiff needs, what sort of mri's are needed, and how long to treat. The lawyer expects the person who hit the plaintiff to pay all the medical, plus lost wages, plus pain and suffering, plus anything else they can think of. The supposed injuries are no different than what the plaintiff was complaining of prior to the accident.

Plaintiff's lawyers will file this case all day long. They'll justify it by saying the person is injured, and the law can provide them compensation. They'll justify it by saying that everyone deserves representation, and if they say they were hurt, who are we to argue against them?

This is the danger of the system as it is. It's not about what is morally right or wrong. It's about using the system to generate money or further a political agenda. Lawyers will completely suborn their sense of morality in order to keep the money rolling in, or to push the socialist agenda. Sometimes the socialist agenda keeps the money rolling in, as is the case of plaintiff's personal injury law. The supposedly injured party is simply a stalking horse, put out there to distract from what the lawsuit is really about.