Lovely. A federal jury ruled today in a civil trial that gun makers are "negligent" in their marketing and distribution of guns. Apparently, they believed the argument that the legal selling in states without draconian gun laws is responsible for gun violence in cities such as New York that have severe restrictions on firearms. You see, these manufacturers "produce more guns than the legitimate market needs." I can only assume that they're supposed to use a crystal ball to determine the exact amount of "need". Obviously, they can't go by the amount of guns they can sell, because, judging by the decision of the mentally-aberrent jury, they're selling too many. Nevermind that short of selling no guns at all (which is exactly what these people want), the amount of guns they sell would make no difference. Nevermind that most guns used in crime are stolen or imported illegally. Nevermind that, according to a CNN online poll, 87% of readers don't believe gun makers can be held liable for gun violence. The simple truth is that there's no money to be made in suing the criminals who are truly responsible. If they had money, they wouldn't be committing armed robbery and murder.

This is not the first case brought against gun makers, but the first real success. Why is this? Because the U.S. is becoming more and more litigious every day. In addition, Clinton has created an anti-gun atmosphere across the nation. This is simply another facet of the Clintonian end-run around the Constitution. Can't get a law passed to do what you want? Issue an executive order to by-pass Congress. Or initiate civil suits to put the companies you can't control out of business. And think, today's suit was only brought about by 7 plaintiffs. Imagine how many will follow. Consider how many other markets this will extend into. Automobiles? Knives? Over-the-counter drugs? If we really want to improve quality of life by putting someone out of business, we should start with the lawyers.