Reply #253: What in hell are you talking about?

[jgraz]

I've been explicit in my support for individual civil liberties, including the right to sue in civil court. How in any way is that an "ends justify the means" approach?

If gun makers can be found to be negligent, they should pay the penalties just like any other plaintiff who loses a lawsuit. One of the benefits of civil suits is they enable individual citizens to change corporate misbehavior ahead of any specific legislation. Just look at what the Ford Pinto judgment did to the soulless corporate practice of applying cost-benefit analysis to human life.

You *are* in favor of individual civil rights, are you not?


Or are you a lawyer where suits, counter-suits and endless motions are just job-security? (Gotta pad them billable hours!)

And again, we see the right-wing baggage that unfailingly accompanies a pro-gun stance. Go after the trial attorneys who represent the little guy against Corporate America. How very very progressive of you.

(And no, I'm not an attorney -- just someone who believes in more than one civil liberty.)

"Using the deliberate infliction of litigation costs to obtain leverage over an opponent was once considered a breach of legal ethics, but times have changed. Litigators boasted that their attacks would bleed the thinly capitalized gun industry into submission. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Andrew Cuomo warned gun makers that unless they cooperated they'd suffer "death by a thousand cuts." Several makers have in fact gone bankrupt since the courtroom siege began."

And please, give credit where credit is due. This is lifted directly from the website of the ultra-right-wing http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_wsj-plaintiffs_lawyers_take_a.htm">Manhattan Institute. Always nice to know who's really behind the pro-gun agenda.