Larger text
Smaller text
Print
E-mailPolitics and guns -- always a heated issue at election time
It's no secret that I have a firm mistrust for politicians.
They are artists at twisting truths and lies into something that sounds realistic enough to slip past the public's comprehension.
I also want to make it clear that this is not a political statement, for or against, either of the presidential candidates.
According to a report from the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) voted against a bill to stop lawsuits blaming gun makers for criminal shootings.
This sounds familiar because Gov. Ed Rendell, former mayor of Philadelphia, once tried to make it possible to hold gun manufacturers accountable, through lawsuits, for crimes committed with firearms.
I'm not sure if this is a coincidence -- or a Democratic Party platform issue.
A lawsuit filed against gunmaker Sturm, Ruger & Co. by two West Orange, N.J., police officers was dismissed Oct. 1.
The officers were shot in January 2001 by a convicted felon attempting to evade capture during an attempted armed robbery.
In dismissing the case, the judge said it would require a real stretch of the law to find the gun maker liable for the criminal misuse of a gun sold lawfully to a federally licensed Ohio wholesale distributor two years earlier.
Federal legislation to stop cases that blame gun manufacturers for criminal shootings was opposed by Kerry who, in March, returned from the presidential campaign trial to cast the decisive vote to defeat the legislation.
It seems to me that if Kerry is going to tell America that he's a hunter and supports the Second Amendment, his vote to allow lawsuits against gun makers proves he must really care more about protecting trial lawyers -- such as his running mate Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.).
I also want to add that I have no idea why President Bush allowed the assault rifle ban to expire. In fact, I have no idea why a law of that type even had the option to expire, since it had no effect on the hunting fraternity.
While I always will support the right to bear arms and enjoy the hunting and shooting sports, I have to yield to the fact that the hunters and competitive shooters have no need for an assault rifle.
At one time, I owned an assault rifle, and it was, indeed, fun to shoot. But it cost a fortune in costly automatic .45-caliber bullets because each time I pulled the trigger it would bast out 30 rounds in a few seconds.
Outdoor writers are not rich, high-income folks, and we don't qualify for that $200,000 per year tax break. So with that financial truth in mind, I quickly sold the novelty gun -- at a loss -- to a local gun dealer.
The gun was fun to own and shoot for a few months, but it was not functional or a necessity to own.
It also is a ridiculous concept to believe that a gun manufacturer should be held accountable for anyone that was killed or injured any firearm. That would be like suing Ford or Chevrolet for a fatal automobile accident.
I'm not saying that anyone should oppose Kerry because of this anti-gun sentiment -- nor should they vote for him simply because he claims to be a hunter.
To harken back to Rendell: While he tried to make it legal to file lawsuits against gun manufacturers, he has been more friendly to the sportsman than his predecessor, Tom Ridge, who actually was a hunter.
The best thing that happened for Pennsylvania sportsmen was the relocation of Ridge to Washington, D.C.
