There’s an old episode of “South Park” where the kids encounter “Underpants Gnomes” who have a scheme to get rich. Phase 1 of the plan is that the gnomes steal underpants. Phase 2 is blank. But Phase 3 is profit. Simple, right? Well, as long as don’t worry too much about what exactly happened in Phase 2 to make Phase 3 possible:

Well, some Underpants Gnomes seem to be writing headlines for Mother Jones. Notice how there’s a huge gap between these two sentences?

That’s because Phase 2, in this case, was an ill-advised lawsuit against the gun dealer, as National Review Online’s Charles C.W. Cooke so rightly points out:

Anger should be directed at the attorney that let her file the lawsuit knowing that this outcome was most likely. From Mother Jones:

There was one experience that showed us, more than any other, how warped America’s relationship with gun violence is. It came when we decided to sue the dealer that armed our daughter’s killer. The gunman bought more than 4,000 rounds of ammunition before his shooting spree—no background check, no questions asked. But a judge dismissed our case. Gun dealers are shielded by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a controversial law that protects them from liability when crimes are committed with their products.

No blame for the lawyers, or the Brady Campaign that put her up to it:

Even some anti-gun folks are objecting to the piece: