Holding purveyors of anti-gun junk science accountable?

“The intent here is not really to advocate suing or prosecuting those who push dubious “studies” that support more oppressive gun laws. Instead, let this be seen as a warning against placing restrictions on the First Amendment…”

Kurt Hoffman writes in the St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner:

An article last month in the Conducive Chronicle raised the question of civil liability for publishing studies (or enabling their publishing) that support the “wrong” side of the climate change debate — or even making involvement in such studies illegal… Entrance into the debate about anthropogenic climate change is obviously far beyond the scope of St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner, so what am I getting at? Just that if, as the article puts it, “deliberate manipulation of science” in an effort to influence policy becomes illegal, the forcible citizen disarmament lobby might want to “lawyer up.”

Examples? Glad you asked…

Read “Holding purveyors of anti-gun junk science accountable?

3 thoughts on “Holding purveyors of anti-gun junk science accountable?”

  1. Fact is that Governments are in on the scam – spending your money to scare you into allowing them to spend even more plus of course, control all aspects of your life – so we can’t count on them to charge the fraudsters.

    Maybe citizens need to band together and sue the crap out of the lying greens. The Sierra Club, WWF, Greenpeace, The Suzuki foundation, The Pembina Institute. All of them and more should be sued if our Governments won’t act appropriately.

  2. Their marketing departments told them that “Sierra Club” and “Suzuki
    Foundation” and “Pembina Institute” would work alot better than calling themselves the “Fascist Misanthropes.”

    Doesn’t mean we can’t call them that.

    They are in business to constrain their fellow humans. Animals are props
    to achieve that goal. It isn’t about guns . . . or polar bears . . . it’s about you.

  3. I’ve been close enough to a few studies to see the questions and the mandatory speeches; “In view of…” ect.
    to know that they are not unbiased. Being able to sue for false conclusions, stated or implied would clean up a lot of junk science.

Comments are closed.