Double Standard: Clinton argues gun manufacturers, but not the vaccine industry, ought to be liable for product related injuries and deaths

Politics is ridden with double standards. Last night’s Democrat Party presidential debate was no exception. When it came to the issue of gun control, Hillary Clinton argued that gun manufacturers ought to be financially liable for gun deaths, claiming that “no other industry” has total legal immunity. Never mind the fact that the vaccine industry does have total legal immunity, which Clinton supports.

The issue of gun control took flame when Gene Kopf, whose 14-year-old daughter was critically injured in an Uber driver’s shooting spree last month, asked the Democratic primary candidates how they would crack down on gun control. He added that he didn’t “want to hear anything about tougher laws for mental health or criminal backgrounds, because that doesn’t work.” Kopf also stated that Jason Dalton, the man responsible for the shooting that nearly killed his daughter, “had no mental health issues recorded, and had a clear background.”

 

In response, Clinton stated, “We have to try everything that works to try to limit the numbers of people and the kinds of people who are given access to firearms,” and acknowledged that “not every killer will have the same profile.”

Absolute immunity

However, she added, “I also believe, so strongly, Gene, that giving immunity to gunmakers and sellers was a terrible mistake.” Clinton was alluding to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which protects gun manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when their products are used to commit crimes. Clinton went on to press that her opponent, Bernie Sanders, voted in favor of the bill.

“No other industry in America has absolute immunity… and they sell products all the time that cause harm,” Clinton said. “You talk about corporate greed? The gun manufacturers sell guns to make as much money as they can make.”

Clinton glossed over the fact that the vaccine industry, which she supports, does have legal immunity whentheir products cause harm. When the question of vaccine safety was brought up during the Republican presidential debate last year, Clinton made a tweet that compared people who want evidence to support the claimed efficacy or safety of vaccines to those who deny that the earth is round or the sky is blue.

National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act

The vaccine industry obtained immunity from legal liability for its products in 1986, when Congress passed a bill called the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. The act gave the impression that the government was reaching out to vaccine-injured families when, in actuality, it denied injured parties the right to a trial by jury.

The federal act gave vaccine manufacturers the right to not disclose the risks attached to vaccines. Due to the “learned intermediary doctrines,” vaccine producers are not liable for vaccine injuries nor do they have to disclose correct information to those who are getting vaccinated.

Since injured families can’t bring vaccine manufacturers before a jury, they have to submit to the Department of Health and Human Services. The federal government then decides whether an injured family should be compensated to not speak out about the case.

Commenting on Clinton’s hypocrisy, Mike Adams, editor of Natural News, explains the difference between gun manufacturers versus vaccine manufacturers:

“Hillary’s statement shows her incredible ignorance about the current state of legal immunity for vaccine manufacturers. While gun manufacturers do not intentionally design their products to cause harm, vaccine manufacturers deliberately formulate their products with known neurotoxic chemicals and heavy metals. If any industry should be held responsible for the injury and death of countless victims, it’s the vaccine industry.”

ChatClick here to chat!+