NFL Bans Daniel Defense Super Bowl Ad

The NFL allows all kinds of ads during the Super Bowl. Some are for erectile dysfunction and a lot for alcohol, particularly beer. There are sexually suggestive ads and there are ads that support things like gun control. Some teams in the NFL even promote things like Obamacare.

But the NFL has standards don’t you know. The NFL will not allow ads that do not meet their standards, such that they are. Yes, while the NFL allows ads FOR gun control and that show scantily clad women serving beer to men who take pills for erectile dysfunction one thing the NFL will not stand for is an ad that promotes self defense.

Daniel Defense has an ad that shows a veteran talking about his responsibility to protect his family. A gun is never mentioned though a picture of one appears at the end in the Daniel Defense logo.

This is apparently too much for the NFL, an organization that has a whole lot of violent law breakers smashing each other for our entertainment. Colion Noir has this to say about it:

Noir is absolutely correct in his assessment. No one with a half a brain who sees the commercial can disagree with it but the NFL will not allow it.

I can understand the desire of the NFL to have standards but it is hard for it to make a case when it allows questionable ads and when it books halftime shows that should come with parental warnings.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

Get Rid Of Your Guns Or Move

An apartment complex in Castle Rock Colorado has a new rule. It notified tenants that they have until 1 October to get rid of their firearms or they will not be allowed to live in their apartment. The letter basically says that on 1 October residents cannot display, use, or possess any firearms or weapons of any kind, anywhere on the property.

A baseball bat or kitchen knife can be used as a weapon but that is a discussion for another time.

The issue here is does the apartment complex have the legal right to deny a person’s rights? I am no lawyer and do not know if this is legal or not. It seems to me that changing the rules for people who live there is wrong whether it is legal or not. I know that some complexes have banned certain types of dogs but there is no right to keep and bear dogs written in the US Constitution.

There are people living there who are very upset. One is a 77 year old retired Marine who has very little money (so he can’t move or afford a lawyer) but owns firearms and hunts. He even has a concealed carry permit. The state has checked on him and he is OK to carry a concealed gun and he certainly carried one in the Corps but he is unable to own one and live at this complex.

Before the anti gun nuts cheer the decision of the apartment owner please think about this. Suppose the letter had been sent out that indicated that residents could not display, use, or possess religious items of any kind, anywhere on the property.

You could not have a Bible, Koran or Torah. No Christmas tree or Menorah. No religious jewelry like a Cross or Star of David or clothing such as a yarmulke or burka. If you refuse to get rid of them you have to move and if you are caught with any of those items you will be evicted.

How would that go over? If they can legally deny one constitutionally protected right then they can deny any constitutionally protected right.

If this had been the existing rule and people rented with full knowledge of the ban then it would not be an issue. The problem here is that people have been living here and own firearms and now the rules have changed.

I know there are people who are anti gun and who don’t think people should own them. Fine, then don’t own one but leave everyone else alone.

Particularly in Castle Rock where the police failed to enforce a protective order and three children were murdered as a result.

Oh, and the Supreme Court ruled the police had no obligation to enforce the order.

The police are under no obligation to protect you. If you live in Castle Rock at those apartments you will have no way of protecting yourself.

Will the apartment complex owners be responsible if someone who relinquishes his firearms just to have a home is injured or murdered?

The apartments are managed by Ross Management Group. Please avoid doing business with them wherever they happen to be. Your life might depend on it.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

Obama Photoshopped Shooting Picture

UPDATE: The content of this post has been removed because it was inaccurate and contained a link to a phony site.

While I like to keep things posted I did not want to have the information continue around the web spreading something false.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

[jpsub]

Interesting Information About Guns

Obama opposes guns for self defense even in the home:

As a state senator in Illinois, President Obama opposed legislation providing an exception to handgun restrictions if the weapon was used in the defense of one’s home. White House Dossier

Even Pravda warns against giving up our guns:

These days, there are few things to admire about the socialist, bankrupt and culturally degenerating USA, but at least so far, one thing remains: the right to bear arms and use deadly force to defend one’s self and possessions. Pravda

Do you have a responsibility to fight if they come for your guns?:

You have the right to kill any representative of this government who tries to tread on your liberty. I am thinking about self-defense and not talking about inciting a revolution. Re-read Jefferson’s quote. He talks about a “last resort.” I am not trying to start a Revolt, I am talking about self-defense. If the day for Revolution comes, when no peaceful options exist, we may have to talk about that as well. None of us wants to think about that, but please understand that a majority can not take away your rights as an American citizen. Only you can choose to give up your rights. The DC Clothesline

It will likely get really ugly in the near future. People need to decide where they want to be and what they are willing to fight for. If the government can impose its will and remove God given rights like the right to keep and bear arms then it can remove the right to peaceably assemble, practice religion, speak freely, petition government for redress of grievances, the freedom of the press, right against unlawful searches, and on and on.

Once one right is deemed OK to sacrifice then all others are able to get the same designation. Without the means to fight against tyranny we become slaves to government. I don’t know where I read it but someone wrote that armed societies sometimes have mass shootings but unarmed societies have mass genocide.

How true that is. Governments have murdered more people than madmen with firearms.

The Constitution places limits on government and government’s power comes from the consent of the governed.

They need to be reminded of that from time to time.

“When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes DUTY!” – Thomas Jefferson

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

[jpsub]

The Obama Dilemma

Barack Hussein Obama (mmm, mmm, mmm) is an anti gun liberal/progressive/Socialist. He does not like guns and, like any typical liberal, he does not think anyone should be allowed to own them. He claims to believe that the Second Amendment is an individual right but that government can constrain that right (it is obvious that some regulation is due but Obama’s idea of constrain is to ban). Obama is on record as supporting state legislation to ban the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns.

There is no denying that fact because he wrote it on a survey (and yes, he was the one who filled it out).

Obama has been an opponent of the Second Amendment throughout his life. His political career is a testament to the gun grabbers of the left and if he had his way he would ban guns, period.

If he gets reelected he will have “more flexibility” to enact all kinds of bans and work on all kinds of legislative tricks to restrict our rights.

Remember, liberals love to have armed guards around them and they love to be protected but they do not believe that the rest of us (the ones paying for their armed guards) should enjoy the same protection.

Obama has a dilemma on his hands. There has been a 66% increase in gun sales since Obama took office. The upsurge in gun sales has increased by 12 BILLION dollars and accounted for a 30% increase in jobs (98,750) last year. 1

It also led to $2.5 BILLION in federal taxes. 1

If Obama had been able to ban guns in his first term there would have been an even more dismal economy and the jobs reports would be worse than it is.

Obama is not worried about the economy except where it will affect his chances for reelection. He wants the economy to tank so the government can take complete control of everything.

It is ironic that the very thing that Obama hates would provide a boost to the economy and that he would benefit from it.

It is also important to note that Obama will not give up his dream of an unarmed population (which would be a slave population). If he is reelected he will try to ban guns and our government could well try to follow the British or Australian model of disarming citizens (neither of which has solved illegal gun crimes).

There is a reason that so many more people are buying guns. I don’t think it is so that they can just give them up based on the whim of a Socialist who desires to be the Dear Leader of our nation.

The vote in November is very important to the Republic. We have an opportunity to correct a mistake and get back to being a great nation.

In November we have the opportunity to see the end of an error…

1 The Washington Times

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline