Thursday, August 20, 2020

Death By A Thousand Cuts

As a political observer and participant for three decades, I have seen a lot of political candidates, each with their own flavor. Ronald Reagan was all about morning in America and leading America in the Cold War against the existential threat of communism. Bill Clinton was a new kind of "centrist" Democrat, who was hip and could appeal to the young folks, especially chubby interns. George W. Bush was the compassionate conservative who was transformed by 9/11 into a war-time President. Barack Obama was the first homosexual mulatto black President and was supposed to usher in a new political paradigm. Trump promised to Make America Great again via political populism. Honestly, I don't remember what George H.W. Bush ran on, pretty much just that things were good under Reagan so why rock the boat?

While I have no idea what Trump is supposed to be basing his re-election on other than Biden being senile, Biden's plan as written by his staff promises fundamental changes, an unmaking of the political and cultural system of the United State and replacing it with a new, less free "progressive" vision. One of the Biden plan's main points is gun control, as I detailed here: The Future Of Gun Ownership (Or Lack Thereof). Unlike most other Democrats, who wanted gun control but weren't as overt about it, the Biden team has been quite open about their plan to disarm the American people. They are feeling confident about Joe winning and coming into office with a majority in both chambers, and likewise they are confident that once in office, they will stay there. I think they are probably right.

One of the critical pieces of the Biden plan that doesn't get as much attention as the promised ban on "assault weapons" is the scheme to reduce liability protection for firearms manufacturers that sell a legal product that is later used in the commission of a crime. From the above linked post:

As I pointed out, this is the very first proposal for gun control on Biden's webpage. It seems odd at first, why wouldn't they lead with something sexier like an "assault weapons" ban?

The reason is pragmatic and it is first because people who are serious people that understand how things work know that an "assault weapons" ban would face all sorts of court challenges that could drag on for years. Taking away the liability protection? That would have an immediate impact that looks like this:

Families of Sandy Hook massacre victims say Remington bankruptcy intentionally leaves them in the cold

The Remington Arms Co. appears on the verge of being sold off in pieces following its second Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing in just over two years.

It is an inauspicious fate for the 204-year-old company, which bills itself as America’s oldest gun manufacturer. But civil liability claimants who helped drive the company to this point allege that Remington’s attempt to auction itself off is deliberately crafted to deny them the compensation they say they are owed.

The federal judge overseeing the bankruptcy case, Clifton R. Jessup in Decatur, Alabama, has scheduled a hearing for Tuesday on whether to approve the process, which would see Remington’s various businesses — which operate under the umbrella Remington Outdoor Co. — auctioned off as soon as Sept. 8.

A business in operation for over 200 years is about to be chopped up and sold off in pieces because a loon shot up a school with a legally available firearm.

This will be the fate of firearms and ammo manufacturers, one after another. This is by design.

Lawsuits can be ruinous to a business. Something like the Sandy Hook shooting, a criminal act be a deranged man, can drag on for years and be an enormous expense. The Sandy Hook shooting happened in 2012 and 8 years later the lawyers are still trying to get money from Remington, a company with over 3,500 employees.

While the big fight will be over the "assault weapons" ban, the quiet undermining of the industry will happen in court rooms as gun manufacturers, ammo supplies, gun dealers, credit card companies, anyone lawyers can connect to a shooting are all targeted. Forcing the industry to go out of business serves the same purpose as a ban on new production.

Remington is just the beginning.

2 comments:

  1. As I understand it, the real reasons why manufacturing left the U.S. are race hustlers, feminists demanding the "good" jobs, inept / weak management kowtowing to Union demands during the good times (i.e. not being able to say no, we're saving for the lean years) and the lawsuits after lawsuit after lawsuits.

    That's why manufacturing isn't coming back. The freeloaders are just to numerous and to empowered

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is a lot to that, we still have lots of manufacturing in America at least around here.

      Delete