by David E. Petzal, rifle editor of Field and Stream, writing in The Gun Nut blog on F&S’s website had what I consider the best comment on the controversy over the NFL’s denial of the Daniel Defense Super Bowl Ad.
It’s possible that this is nothing more than hypocrisy. But the real reason, I think, is that the NFL is trying to protect its investments. The oversized guy who crashes his $150,000 custom SUV into a house and breaks down the door with his fists to strangle the family inside may be someone’s number one draft pick, and all those millions his team spent on him would go right down the drain if some terrified homeowner shot him in self-defense.
And we can’t have that now, can we? It’s…un-American.
That is truly snarky….and I love it!
Oh, love it! THAT hits the nail right on the head…
Perhaps they should also ban the shotgun formation…
@David: Good one!
Notice how he didn't mention the probable ethnicity of that "oversized guy"……
Petzal's the one who said we should ban rifles such as those made by Daniel Defense. As far as I know, he never changed his mind.
Still doesn't mean we can't use his words when they're useful.
But, yeah; I would have no great problems allowing hunters to be thrown under the bus if it weren't for the rest of my family who are both primarily hunters and 100% RKBA….
It's part & parcel that Neo-Coms [Neo – Communists] have to control speech.
thanks for information….
One of the nice information about the lawyers.It would be best if you add some more about it.Thanks.
http://propertylawplanning.wordpress.com/