Hillary wants shooting victims to be able to sue gun makers, but doesn't want vaccine victims to do the same to vaccine manufacturers

Monday, October 19, 2015 by: J. D. Heyes
http://www.naturalnews.com/051618_Hillary_Clinton_gun_control_vacci...

(NaturalNews) Another senseless shooting at another institute of learning has once again brought about some of the same tired, hapless and inane recommendations from many of the usual suspects who merely reintroduce bad policy.

One of them is Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton, who, as a member of the party that never seems to regulate enough of our lives, wants new rules to deal with shootings.

According to NBC News, which saw an advanced copy of her gun control policy, Clinton wants two things, primarily: a "[tightening of] rules governing gun show and Internet sales," a reference to the expansion of background checks that has so far eluded Democrats and their surrogates, and rules that allow victims of gun violence to sue gun makers (the cases lawyers would get in Obama's hometown of Chicago alone would be enough for hundreds of lawyers to make an entire career out of).

First, let's look at her claim that "tightening gun show rules" would make a difference (gun sales are already subject to the FBI's National Instant Background Check System). As noted by Breitbart News, the problem here is that the Oregon gunman passed a background check for his gun, as did other mass murderers in recent years. One exception is the shootings by two high schoolers at Columbine, but those guns were purchased legally by others.

Then again, Clinton wants to use the most recent shooting as an opportunity to change the law so that victims and their families could get into the pockets of gun makers — along the lines of allowing families whose loved ones have died in an automobile accident to sue the carmaker, or for overweight people to sue food companies.

The majority isn't with Hillary on this

In fact, as Breitbart News notes, a Duke University researcher recently concluded that owning an automobile is 80 percent more dangerous than owning a firearm, as it relates to others' lives. But of course, Clinton has said nothing about giving crash victims the right to sue Ford, Chevy or Dodge, because, heck, that would be ridiculous!

Clinton asked, "What is wrong with us that we can't stand up to the NRA and the gun lobby and the gun manufacturers they represent?" as she pledged to fight for these new controls and laws as president. Maybe the question should be broadened and applied directly to her: "What is wrong with you being unable to stand up against your big dollar donors and do the people's bidding instead?"

It's also important to note that, no doubt using President Obama's "pen and phone" model, Clinton has proposed to unconstitutionally enact her controls via executive action if Congress won't pass legislation to enact them.

How about vaccine violence, Hillary?

While we're at it, where is Clinton's proposal to allow victims of vaccine damage to take Big Pharma to court?

In recent days, Clinton has pledged to take on Big Pharma over pricing for some medications, but the reality is, she is co-opted and wholly obedient to Big Pharma, along with petrochemical corporations and banksters who have financed her through the Clinton Family Foundation and by direct donation.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks political donations at all campaign levels, Clinton's campaign had raised more than $47 million as of June 30; 83 percent of this amount came from large individual donors.

As for her policies, even those involved in the Oregon shooting — victims and victims' loved ones — aren't on her side (see here and here).

Sources:

Breitbart.com

NBCNews.com

Breitbart.com

NaturalNews.com

OpenSecrets.org