I've been sent about a dozen emails in the last couple of days telling me that I should call for a boycott of the NFL because it refused to run an ad from Daniel Defense, a firearms manufacturer.
I think you should watch the ad at the linked article -- it's good, and there are no guns displayed. Anywhere. It simply makes the point that we, the people, have primary responsibility for the defense of our families, and that responsibility is certainly something that we should (and many do) take very seriously.
I also don't doubt for a second that the NFL refused the ad. After all, they're the most-rank of hypocrites, celebrating men bashing each other's brains out on the gridiron (a grand American tradition) while at the same time demanding that women carry transparent purses and otherwise insulting their fans. I haven't set foot at an NFL game for decades for exactly this sort of reason -- not only are the tickets grossly overpriced and the stadiums gross rapes of the taxpayer but I refuse to be insulted by people who then ask me to spend my hard-earned money with them.
That people put up with that crap says everything I need to know about idiocracy among Americans -- there should not be one person in any NFL stadium -- ever.
That our nation is stupid enough to pay really good money (and lots of it) only to be abused by the people taking the funds is an outrage. We do the same thing in airports, by the way, and it's equally stupid there. I fly when I must, but I sure don't do it if I have other rational alternatives -- and I usually do. Indeed, I've put something close to 6,000 miles on my car in the last 45 days precisely because I took three 14-hour each-way trips (and they were round trips) in my vehicle because I refuse to spend my hard-earned money with people that flip me off if I have a rational alternative.
But heh, if you're a ****ing idiot it's not my place to stop you from being stupid beyond words. You're entitled to be stupid, and to reap the rewards.
But it is for this reason that I bring up this alleged commercial.
You see, Daniel Defense is a little company. How little? Not much larger than MCSNet was in its hayday -- best estimates are that it has about $12 million in annual revenue.
So with a 30-second Superbowl commercial costing about $4 million, exactly how was this company going to pay for it?
That's easy -- they weren't because they couldn't. They most-certainly weren't going to put ~30% of their annual revenues into one 30 second commercial.
No way, no how.
But by "submitting" the ad (if they did) and getting it "denied" (if they did) they got for free what they couldn't afford to pay for -- an association with the NFL and professional football.
Well-played Mr. Daniel. If I need firearms or parts that you produce in the future, I will definitely consider your firm's products. I've heard they're very high-quality, you make 'em in the good old USA (in Georgia) and from what I can see your prices are reasonable as well.
But as for boycotting the NFL? For what? Being dumb enough to fall for Mr. Daniel's foil and give him millions worth of advertising for free? That's good for a chuckle, not a boycott.
What I will do is look askance at all the people who took this "story" at face value and called for said boycott -- because they have shown that they lack the basic level of discernment necessary to intelligently process common daily events.
“I think the NRA, they’ve got it half right when they say ‘guns don’t kill people, people kill people,’” he told the TMZ cameraman. “I change it to ‘guns don’t kill people, Americans kill people.’ Because we’re really the only ones that do it on this level, on this scale. Why?”
Oh that's not all that hard to figure out.
First you destroy the family. You create monstrous incentives for "Baby Mama" crap and go from about 7% of children born out of wedlock (when the "war on poverty" began) to 40% today.
This, in turn, means that for virtually all of those children there is no parent at home who has a decent worth ethic to raise them. Either their "Baby Mama" sits around on welfare all day or the kid is effectively raised in what amounts to an animal pen for the first several years of his or her life (it's called "daycare".) Are you surprised that they turn out like animals when the first and highest job in such a place is keeping the 20 kids in there from braining each other with toy dinosaurs?
Next, poverty. Two can live cheaper than one. You're five times more likely to live in actual poverty if you have a kid out of wedlock.
And that in turn means you're more-likely to live in an environment where crime is a way of life because poverty and crime tend to go together.
Oh, and don't start that crap about this all being teen births either. It's not -- at least not now, with abortion being legal. Most of these births are consensual, not forced, and occur to women in their 20s.
Oh, and finally the destruction that has occurred among black people, in particular, is outrageous beyond words. Nearly 3/4 of black births happen out of wedlock and over half of all hispanic births. Why is this outrageous? Because when the "war on poverty" began these rates were a quarter -- or less -- of what they are now.
In other words it is the direct and proximate consequence of government programs that were all claimed to "help" these population subsets that have in fact destroyed them.
Now square this with the fact that six times as many black people commit homicide and are victims of it as are whites. But blacks are ~17% of the population so you're more than 10 times as likely to either commit murder or be murdered if you're black on a population-adjusted basis.
Again, why is this?
Because of left-leaning government programs that were claimed to so-called "save" minorities.
They have instead, factually, destroyed Black Americans.
Get up and look in the ****ing mirror, Michael, and you will find one of the biggest cheerleaders for the destruction of Black Americans.
Ps: If we won't cut that crap out (and we damn well should) the least we can do is actually recognize and fully support the 2nd Amendment for everyone, without turning it into a permission slip so that those in the minority community who are targeted by government programs for death at least have the option and ability to defend themselves. You can't argue that you believe in equal rights for all if you do not also fully support every individual's right to self-defense, irrespective of who or where they might be.
WEST PALM BEACH — A five-year officer with the West Palm Beach Police Department is on administrative leave with pay after shooting and killing a man who pointed an AK-47 assault rifle at him Saturday night in a confrontation at Howard Park, authorities said Monday.
That's not a nice thing to do.
There's a problem though. Look closely:
That's not an AK-47. It looks like an M1. The magazine looks like it is from an AK, but the rounds definitely are not 7.62x39, which is what an AK-47 fires. The inset picture shows what appears to be 5.56 (AR-15) ammunition and a hollow-point pistol round.
Now the caption on the still does not say "that's the gun", and the inset picture says the weapon is similar to the weapon used. A further caption and image from a different angle specifically identifies the gun as an AK-47 -- which it most-definitely is not.
Why would you put out a weapons that has no relationship to the actual one used, a magazine that won't fit the weapon, and rounds that won't fit either the gun or the magazine on the table for a press conference?
That makes no sense, and leads one to wonder -- exactly what was pointed at the officer.... or was something lethal pointed in his direction at all?
What I do know is that there's no reason to put a random weapon with a mismatched magazine and ammunition on the table when holding a press conference. If you're showing the press (and the public) the evidence of the alleged crime, that's well and good along with being facially legitimate -- but if this was the weapon allegedly used, along with the magazine and rounds allegedly on the assailant it was impossible for him to fire them at the officer as none of those components on the table are compatible with one another.
Finally, since the Palm Beach Post is too stupid to know any of this and thus not only failed to call the cops on this nonsense but ran with it in their story leads one to wonder exactly how they can claim to be "reporters" and a source for "news" that one should allegedly trust.
What do you do when terrorists turn from attacking well-protected government buildings and transportation centers in favor of anyplace that people may congregate? Specifically, how do you address bloody scenarios like the assault on the Westgate mall in Nairobi, Kenya by the Islamist group al-Shabaab, which killed at least 61 civilians? Well, the Secretary General of Interpol, the international police-coordination organization, says you either start providing "extraordinary security" perimeters around anything that might be a target, or else let people carry the means to defend themselves. Surprisingly, he seems to lean toward empowering individuals to take responsibility for their own defense.
Look, folks, this is pretty simple so let's put it in a context you can all understand.
You're at some public event. Pick anything, from a festival to a park with your dog to a busy downtown street in the shopping district.
A terrorist, or group of terrorists, enter, pull weapons and start to mow down civilians.
Do you wish to be armed at that particular instant or not?
That's really all it comes down to. It is not a matter of "well, I might miss and he might not" or "it would be nice if there was a cop there to help out."
That's all true, but it's not material.
The only question that is material when you see someone who is clearly intent on taking your life is whether you are going to surrender and die or fight.
It does not matter who you are at that instant in time. It does not matter if you're young or old, male or female, a criminal by day (indicted or not, such as a bankster) or a plumber. All that matters is whether you believe that your life has sufficient value to you that you are not willing to surrender it at someone else's behest -- rather, they will have to take your life over your active resistance.
There are no guarantees when one is playing for these stakes. You may well lose anyway, despite your best efforts, and die. But you will die fighting, as opposed to kneeling before someone who has already demonstrated that they neither give a damn about you nor do they respect the power of prayer or your belief in some omniscient and omnipotent government goon.
For most of us this is all academic in our daily lives, as the odds of running into such a person or persons is quite low. But the odds are not zero. The crazed homicidal maniacs, whether they be motivated by religious fervor, white-hot hatred of some race, color or creed or just pure insanity (often drug-addled whether due to prescription meds we dole out like candy or "recreational" pharmaceuticals), do exist. They are a thankfully small part of the population (anyone who believes otherwise may opine on why it is that we seem to have a fairly short supply of people willing to blow themselves up with ball-bearing infused vests in shopping malls all around America) but the fact remains that if such a person appears in your immediate vicinity you have only two options -- snivel and die or resist with all weapons at your immediate disposal.
It is also a fact that if you are going to have the means of effective resistance you can't pray for them to magically appear after the murderous thug shows up.
Governments would like to assert that you should give up your ability to resist. But this is a red herring; either there is no threat at all in which case not only do you not need the means to resist but neither do they or there is such a threat at some level of magnitude and competence and you are the one who will die before they get there to stop the murderous rampage -- not them.
This nation was formed on the predicate that all are created equal and that the rights of each person come from their creator and are unalienable. That is, no government and no other person has the just authority to take those rights from you, and chief among them is your right to life, followed by liberty. The government also does not have the right to demand that you die so they have the time to "suit up and respond"; that is nothing more than crowning themselves, along with the various police forces, King while you, the peasants, are left to bleed out on the street.
That which you will not or cannot defend you do not have.
Our founders understood that it is precisely the private ownership and bearing of arms as one's conscience directs that secures both life and liberty against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, as they are in fact the last line of defense.
Those who argue otherwise are simply not Americans and should find a nation more in line with their view of the world.
I recommend a nation like North Korea where they should fit right in.
The lies are Fast And Furious within the media, aren't they?
Now it turns out that the FBI has confirmed that there was no AR-15 used at the Navy Yard.
What was used was a shotgun and two pistols, the latter two being apparently taken from guards that the assailant shot.
So much for the "evil assault rifle" game that so many politicians and media pundits seized on.
Where are the retractions and apologies -- and when do we start talking about psychotropic medication and the outrageous correlation that is seen between those who commit mass shootings and those who are on these drugs?
Where We Are, Where We're Heading (2013) - The annual 2013 Ticker
The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.
NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.
The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.
Looking for "The Best of Market Ticker"? Check out Ticker Classics.
Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.
The Market Ticker content may be reproduced or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media or for commercial use.
Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.