From Ted McLaughlin at jobsanger.com:
No organization is more extreme in its position on guns than the National Rifle Association (NRA). They not only support concealed carry in all states, but they support open carry of firearms. They oppose all gun restrictions that cities and states have found it prudent to pass. They don’t think firearms manufacturers should be able to be sued. They oppose efforts to ban the sale and possession of assault weapons (even though they have no real use except to kill humans in large numbers). And they don’t think there should be any restrictions on the ability to buy a gun — including background checks that would prevent criminals, terrorists, and the dangerously mentally-ill from purchasing any kind of gun they want.
Reviewing that list of positions taken by the NRA, one might be tempted to think the NRA couldn’t get any crazier. But if you thought that, then you were wrong.
I have nothing but disdain for the NRA and its spokespeople, but I don’t see why we should be able to sue firearms manufacturers for what people do with their products. That would fly in the face of traditional and reasonable notions of moral and legal responsibility. Moreover, unless we held all other kinds of companies responsible for what people do with their products, holding firearms manufacturers responsible would be morally and legally inconsistent, i.e. wrong.