As if you needed more proof that we have the smartest damned blog readers on the planet, look at this comment that we received to our post below on Lawsuit Abuse Week.
Actually I’m a bit sad about S. 397, because I figured that some enterprising lawyer type would have figured out if you can sue the gun manufacturer for the act of a criminal then why not sue Fruit of the Loom for providing the criminal his shorts, or sue McDonald’s for providing the sausage biscuit and tater tots that gave the criminal the energy to pull the trigger? And then don’t forget Chevron for providing the criminal gas for his vehicle to get to the crime scene .. oh and don’t forget Ford Motor Company for providing the method of transportation. There — I believe that just about covers all the bases to a crime, don’t you think? They’re all guilty you know, I mean you just gotta use logic and follow the dots. Soon we can just sue our way back to the horse and buggy and bows and arrows. Well, on second thought you’d have to sue the bow maker and the buggy maker .. oh well. Say, maybe we could just assume more personal responsibility and individualism..but then what would government do without us to rely on them?
In case you had any doubt about whether our readers get it when it comes to our lawsuit-happy culture, this should put it to rest.
Latest posts by NAM (see all)
- Manufacturers Win Several Website Design Awards - June 15, 2011
- China Makes Commitments on Trade, Intellectual Property - December 16, 2010
- ITC Details Widespread Theft of Intellectual Property in China - December 14, 2010