I think gun owners are missing a creative opportunity to discourage anti-gun editorial activism by discouraging sponsorship. And to those who would decry this as economic blackmail, well...uh...yeah, that's the point. We didn't start this fight. But if aggressors won't let us walk away from it, we should do what it takes to prevail. [More]Today's Gun Rights Examiner column explores the sordid business of newspapers outing CCW holders.
It also has alerts for Oregon, South Dakota and national gun rights issues, and an announcement I will tell you about in a separate post.
Please pass the link along to your friends. Oh, and digg it, too.
Check out the latest from other Gun Rights Examiners:Austin: Big government VS your civil rights
Charlotte: The Carpenters: From tragedy rises heroism
DC: No right to arms, no vote in Congress!
Los Angeles: No question about it: they're coming for the guns. And the money, and the energy, and the food . . .
Minneapolis: Open carry is the 2nd Amendment
St. Louis: Disarming the poor
Subscriptions are a TINY percentage of the income of the print media such as magazines and newspapers. Most of it is from advertising. It's easier than ever to let corporations know that you object to the editorial policies of the publications in which they buy EXPENSIVE ad space. I bet they've never been more willing to listen and choose more wisely.
ReplyDeleteThe "Disarming the poor" article is on target. If you HAVE a .22 Short revolver that works most of the time, you can OBTAIN a brand-new taxpayer-financed MP5 or M4. See "Liberator pistol." People will say the Liberator single-shot .45, which cost about a dollar each to produce from metal stampings, saw very limited distribution and use by civilian Resistance in WWII. The people who used one to get a militarily useful weapon from the enemy considered those ugly brass things worth their weight in gold.
ReplyDelete