NFL Officially Anti-Gun

 

“It would be extremely dangerous to allow concealed weapons at sports events and clearly would put fans at risk.” And there you have it: the National Football League is anti-gun. They’re completely opposed to any move to allow Wisconsin’s freshly-minted concealed carry weapons (CCW) permit holders to carry concealed weapons into Lambau stadium, where the Green Bay Packers hold court. According to chicagotribune.com, the football folks in Wisconsin don’t share the NFL’s cut-and-dried policy on CCW . . .

Lambeau officials said it was too early to commit to any specific policy. They said they wanted to understand the nuances of how the new law would work, since there are slight differences as to how it applies depending on whether the building is owned by a governmental body or other entity.

Lambeau is owned jointly by the city and the Green Bay/Brown County Professional Football Stadium District.

“We’re studying the issue,” said Patrick Webb, the executive director of the stadium district. “Our attorney says a lot of items are subject to interpretation, so we’ll continue to look at it.”

In other words, now would be a good time to email the NFL Commish on the league’s gun policy. Only they don’t accept email (I’ve learned). You can call 1 212 450 2000 and ask to leave a voice mail. ‘Cause that’s a lot easier for them to process, apparently.

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

54 Responses to NFL Officially Anti-Gun

  1. avatarMullah Bob says:

    I think they should get Plaxico Burress to write the new policy, since he is ex-NFL, has handgun experience and is an honorary attorney in the Peoples Republic of New Jersey. I hear he also knows how to treat a female impersonator.

  2. avatarRob Crawford says:

    Wonder how many of the players carried into the stadium…

    • avatarready,fire,aim says:

      well thats different sport figures and politicians are not “steerage” like the rest of us…they are above the law…..:)

  3. Anybody with an ounce of common sense would agree with this. You guys are too biased. Even in the characterization of the NFL position, you show your bias. This isn’t “anti-gun” at all, it’s pro common sense.

    You know, the more I read your position on things like this the more I think it has to do with your just not liking being told what you can and cannot do. But, welcome to the world of grown-ups. Only children and people who live in a fantasy can have your attitude.

    • avatarJames Felix says:

      I’m thoroughly fed up with the gun-control advocates’ favorite rhetorical device. They claim, completely without evidence or data, that their position is “common sense” and that to disagree with it is to automatically make one wrong.

      Sorry, not putting up with it now. Explain how exactly this is “common sense”.

      What power does the entryway of the stadium have that will make someone qualified to carry on one side of it disqualified on the other? What change comes over someone as they cross the threshold? Does the mere presence of a sporting event make someone less able to control himself? If you say “yes” then show me some data.

      What I’m asking you to do is actually make an argument instead of simply dismissing a viewpoint you don’t like. That’s what actual grownups do.

      • avatarI_Like_Pie says:

        The argument is this. If you are hosting an event on your property and don’t want people carrying guns there you simply tell them that you don’t want their business if they want to carry a gun there.

        If I invited someone to a wedding and I didn’t want them to carry at the event it certainly wouldn’t be out of line for me to ask them not to, and to stay away if they didn’t like it.

        This coming from a very staunch 2a advocate.

        • avatarJames Felix says:

          And that’s fine. When you own the property you in large part get to make the rules. But it’s perfectly reasonable to call such an attitude “anti-gun”, and “it’s my house and I don’t like guns” isn’t common sense, it’s completely arbitrary.

        • avatarLeo Atrox says:

          If you were responsible for 70,000 people hopped up on adrenaline and crammed into a confined space with beer (and cheese) would you really want them to bring guns into the mix?

          Out in “society at large,” guns provide for the common defense. In over-crowded and confined areas populated with drunk and rabid football fans, there is an increased chance for violence. (I’ve seen plenty of fights break out at sporting events. In the Midwest, it seems to be the norm.) And if you had a handgun and felt like you needed to deploy it, where could you safely point it? Could you fire it at an attacker with confidence that you would not hit a bystander?

        • avatarAntiCitizenOne says:

          1. We have things called hollowpoints.

          2. There IS training available for dealing with crowded environments.

          3. Ask the cops how they manage with it!

          4. Most attacks happen under 5 feet. You don’t need the isoceles modern technique position here. From a retention position you can put shots into the lower body at that close of a range and significantly improve your background.

    • avatarDaniel Zimmerman says:

      You know, the more I read your position on things like this the more I think it has to do with your just not liking being told what you can and cannot do.

      Ya think, Mike? Did you spend a lot of time in your analysis of the pro-2A position and come up with this trenchant factoid?

      Wow, who’d a thunk it? Gun owners in states where it’s lawful to carry a concealed weapon [49 as of Friday] don’t want to be told they can’t exercise their constitutional right to self-protection in a public venue.

      Damn, we’re unreasonable.

    • avatarRalph says:

      We’re too biased? Holy crap, mikey, you are making this much too easy.

    • avatarMatt H says:

      Common sense is just a weasel phrase with no fixed meaning. Sort of like calling your opponent “extreme” and yourself “moderate”. To accept it as an argument is intellectual laziness. To offer it as one is intellectual dishonesty.

      Here, I’ll play devil’s advocate for a second just to demonstrate what an actual argument would look like:
      I can understand why someone–even someone who sees a role for firearms in self-defense–would be reluctant to allow guns in stadiums. Even if an armed citizen is faced with an immediate, otherwise unavoidable risk of death or grave bodily injury, how would it be possible to use a gun for self defense in a place that crowded without harming innocent bystanders? One of the safety rules is “be sure of your target and what is behind it.” That’s nearly impossible to do inside a stadium.

      Is that really what mikeb302000 had in mind? Who knows? He was too busy posturing, name-calling, and trafficking in weasel words to tell us his reasons. It’s a shame. This forum could really use an anti-gun person who will bother to use reason to try to persuade his or her opponents.

      Maybe the anti-gunners’ reasons are so flimsy, their studies and statistics so stale and discredited, that bluster and rhetorical smoke and mirrors are really all they have.

      Incidentally, why would anyone need to bring a gun to a stadium anyway?

  4. avatarRudy says:

    That game named Rugby! :D

  5. avatarTim says:

    Bummer – his email failed, must have been overloaded… I listed all the unlicensed carriers in the NFL (Cook, Lynch, Burress, Talib, Coffee, Terry, etc…)… oh well, most sporting events already have metal detectors, but it will be interesting to see how this stands up as, at least in part, public property.

  6. avatarMartin Albright says:

    See, I don’t see this policy as “anti-gun”, I see it simply as “risk averse” which describes most well established businesses. And there’s nothing wrong with being risk averse – it’s another way of saying “it ain’t broke so don’t fix it.”

    I would turn the question around, Robert: Are football stadiums so dangerous that you wouldn’t feel comfortable going there unless armed? I haven’t heard of a rash of football-stadium robberies or assaults recently, so I’m not sure what the fuss is about.

    I last went to a Broncos game at Invesco Field [nee Mile High Stadium] in 2003 and I’m unlikely to go again unless the Football Fairy drops some free tickets into my hand, so I may not be in the best position to judge, but I haven’t heard that a football stadium is a place where one is likely to need a gun. Therefore, the inability to carry my piece into Invesco would not deter me from going and if for some reason I did feel that it was such a dangerous place that I needed a gun, I probably wouldn’t go even if I could carry.

    • avatarTim says:

      Have you been to a Dodger baseball game, or lucky enough to be a fan of the opposing team at an Oakland Raiders game?

      • avatarDaniel Zimmerman says:

        +1

        Not to mention Eagles games, Phillies games, Yankees games (at times) or parks in bad parts of town such as Comiskey. Our football stadium here in STL is on the edge of a sketchy area, too. I’m sure there are others I’m not aware of.

        Being at the game isn’t the only issue. There’s also the matter of getting to and from your car.

        • avatarS.A. says:

          or parks in bad parts of town such as Comiskey

          The idea that parking at 35th and Shields is particularly dangerous is a lie perpetrated by Cubs fans. Chad and Trixie are more likely to be mugged stumbling home from the beer garden that is Wrigley than you are to be jacked while tailgating outside of the Cell.

      • avatarMartin Albright says:

        Tim: Do you have any statistics to back that up or is that based on “feelings?” Is there any reason to believe that CA sporting events are more dangerous because they don’t allow CCW there?

        As 2a advocates, I think it’s important to remember that (a) not everybody who loves guns is our friend, and (b) not everybody who prohibits guns is our enemy.

        Or, to put it another way, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and not a sinister attempt to deprive us of our guns.

        • avatarTim says:

          Well, CA does allow CCW (I have one). In CA, its not that it is not allowed, it is up to the individual Sheriff in the County you reside in. It is not “shall issue”, but requires good cause (defined by the Sheriff).

          As to my “feelings”, these are all documented cases of rowdy fan behavior in those parks (and many others throughout the country).

          But the premise of your question is what I challenge. Whether someplace is deemed “safe” or “not-so-much” is wholly dependent on the attendees for that particular game. Or even more dangerous, the walking through the drunken masses back to your car in the evening after the game (or the ride home on some mass transit system).

    • avatarRobert Farago says:

      I don’t perform constant risk assessment for CCW. First, I can’t be bothered. Second, I’d probably be wrong. And the risks of being wrong are high.

      Generally speaking, I don’t like going to places with large crowds of people I don’t know. If I do, I like to carry. Which I do anyway, from waking up to going to sleep.

      Unless I’m prohibited from doing so. If I can’t carry at a place I want to go to, THEN I do risk assessment. Is it worth it?

      I feel safer at events that allow concealed carry than those that don’t. If worst came to worst, I have a tool for protecting myself and my family. Unfortunately, in RI, I couldn’t count on other CCW permit holders for help.

    • avatarShaun61 says:

      Oh, I don’t know. What about the Giants fan beaten to the edge of death in front of his son outside Dodger Stadium earlier this year? What about the walk from your car to the stadium and back? Many NFL stadiums (mine included) require you to park in some sketchy neighborhoods to attend the game. Will the NFL provide armed escorts to and from my car? After all, they want to preempt my right to self defense, so they will take responsibility for it. Right?

  7. avatarRalph says:

    Look at that picture. Obviously, the commissioner has a lot of balls.

  8. avatarMartin Albright says:

    Todd: Anecdote =/= Data. Anyone can cherry pick an incident or two. There are places you go to every day that are more dangerous than a football stadium, based on statistics alone.

    What I take exception to, Robert, is characterizing the NFL’s decision as “anti-gun.”

    I can actually understand the NFL’s position: They probably were worried that if they allowed CCW in their stadiums and someone got shot by a CCW holder, they’d be held liable because they permitted it. Between the emotion generated by fans and the copious quantities of alcohol consumed, their concerns are not without foundation. It’s not an unrealistic fear in this litigious day and age, and labeling them “anti-gun” is a bit much.

    It’s as if anything less than a full-throated, Nugent-like endorsement of guns puts an organization in league with the Brady Bunch and the other gun banners. Not only is it not true, it’s not smart because all it does is alienate those who don’t have a firm opinion either way and makes it easier to label all of us as wingnut kooks.

    • avatarRobert Farago says:

      What would you put for a headline, then?

      • avatarMartin Albright says:

        You could say the NFL is anti-CCW. Not only would it be less inflammatory it would be more true.

        Anti CCW is not the same as anti-gun. But honestly, they may not even be anti-CCW, they may just be anti-CCW at a sports arena.

        Saying that someone is either 100% in support of us or is our sworn enemy is counterproductive if we want to advance the debate and/or expand gun rights. It’s the whole honey vs. vinegar thing.

    • avatarWilliam says:

      So, it’s realistic for the stadium to be afraid even though any evidence that they have cause to fear would be as anecdotal as any other evidence presented?

      Also, is a news story anecdotal only?

      Is the low possibility of threat a reason to ignore any possibility?

      Should I be expected to trust my safety and the safety of my family as a mere statistical probability when I can take positive steps to provide another layer of safety?

      Really, what is common sense? Is it common sense to trust probabilities? Or is it common sense to take positive action?

    • avatarAntiCitizenOne says:

      This is a pretty damn similar argument to what opponents of campus carry keep saying.

      Just without the alcohol that is.

  9. avatarVan says:

    Tough call for me personally on this one. Large crowd, alcohol, heated emotions of sports fans, guns. I am not implying that the CCW would be the instigator of an armed confrontation. Rather, he or she is placing themself in an environment where the probability of facing confrontation is much higher than just walking down the street (no statistics here, just general observation from seeing the behavior or sports fans). I can imagine the consequences the first time a CCW holder pulls a weapon on a group of drunk and hostile rival fans because said CCW holder legitimately felt threatened (the old bringing a gun to a fistfight disparity of force conundrum). It might end up a lose-lose proposition for all involved.

    • avatarAntiCitizenOne says:

      Look up the case of Gerald Ung. Not the best case around – but a decent example.

  10. avatarirock350 says:

    I don’t understand the condemnation of a sports organization as “anti-gun” if anything they are an “anti-carry while attending a game played in our stadiums organization.“ There are certain places that you cannot carry in, banks, bars, rock concerts, schools, certain government institutions ect. They aren’t limiting anyone’s personal freedoms by ruling that a family sports game is not the place for firearms. If you feel like you have to carry to ensure your safety then stay home, it’s not like you can carry a firearm while watching the game in bar or similar establishment. It’s not as if I am anti-gun, but I am pro common sense, while it’s a right to carry a firearm, but it is also incumbent upon an organization to protect itself from legal action. Say someone discharges a firearm while attending a football game; have you considered the panic created by someone firing a weapon in and around a crowd of thousands of people. The only thing you can infer from the NFL’s official statement is that you cannot carry inside the stadium; you can carry a weapon outside the stadium and tailgate, you can carry to and from the stadium, but as long as you are inside the stadiums in a crowd of thousands of children, boozed up fans, emotional fantasy football fans, you cannot carry a gun, and I support that.

    • avatarAntiCitizenOne says:

      Security officers (sometimes armed) and player bodyguards (if hired), as well as police officers in the stadium have to deal with the exact same thing as a responsible fan.

      So what makes these individuals better than the rest of us?

      • avatarirock350 says:

        Player bodyguards are not sitting in the stands drinking beers and screaming at opposing QB’s about how much they suck. Security personnel at stadiums during games are not armed. Police officers (off-duty or not) are well trained and insured against legal action if they discharge their firearm as opposed to the normal fan. Aside from the training and insurance it is their job to put themselves in harm’s way to protect the ticketholders, players and employees and general attendees of the games, it is not your job to put yourself into harms even to protect yourself from danger. Simply put, they are not any better than anyone else, however it is their legal responsibility to protect the general populace and even if you are a CCW holder you do not have the legal responsibility to use your firearm in public.

        • avatarTim says:

          That has got to be the most convoluted logic I have read yet. It IS my responsibility to protect myself and my family.

          Excerpt from Nation of Cowards by Jeffrey Snyder
          http://rkba.org/comment/cowards.html

          Is your life worth protecting? If so, whose responsibility is it to protect it? If you believe that it is the police’s, not only are you wrong — since the courts universally rule that they have no legal obligation to do so — but you face some difficult moral quandaries. How can you rightfully ask another human being to risk his life to protect yours, when you will assume no responsibility yourself? Because that is his job and we pay him to do it? Because your life is of incalculable value, but his is only worth the $30,000 (pick your number) salary we pay him? If you believe it reprehensible to possess the means and will to use lethal force to repel a criminal assault, how can you call upon another to do so for you?

    • avatarWilliam says:

      Why is it that “common sense” has become a synonym for I know best and therefore it should be plain to the rest of you how little sense you have.

      Why is a faceless corporation allowed to protect its liability by disallowing an individual and Constitutional right?

      As for bars – there are some places that do trust its citizens to drink and carry guns responsibly. Which means not drinking while carrying in those places (which actually is common sense.)

      Also, what does the use of “family” mean – are guns too unsafe to be present around families?

      Now, concerning private property, I am fine if they want to exercise their rights to private property – but let’s not get all PC and euphemistic. When they feel fine allowing their guards and player bodyguards to carry and deny the protection to common folk they allow the prestigious have – that’s anti-gun and it’s hypocritical.

      At the end of the day, I think common sense is best seen in what the common person thinks makes sense. The common folk are voting saying they want to exercise their Constitutional rights.

      • avatarMartin Albright says:

        There’s no Constitutional right to carry a concealed weapon. That’s why you need a permit.

        You’re confusing your Constitutional right to own a firearm with your state-sanctioned privilege to carry it concealed (a privilege that you have to earn by demonstrating that you meet certain qualifications and that comes with a number of restrictions.)

        Go back and read Heller and McDonald. In neither case did the Court hold that you have a Constitutional right to carry a concealed firearm everywhere you go.

        • avatarTim says:

          We have gotten the “Keep” part back, working on the “Bear” next….

      • avatarirock350 says:

        The NFL is allowing you to exercise your right to bear arms, however you do not have the right to bear them in public unrestricted or on private property, the 2nd amendment does not give every citizen the right to carry a firearm everywhere they want to go, and that decision has been upheld by SCOTUS.

        • avatarWilliam says:

          Thanks Irock for repeating some of what I said in a response to me. I mentioned the whole private property thing.

          Also, where does it say that bodyguards of players must defend the attendees?

          As for right – just because some states want to regulate the Constitution doesn’t change the right. Where I live, my state does not require a separate license for me to carry any more than I need one to speak my opinion. Go back and read the Constitution. Why should I need a court to approve of the Bill of Rights? Why should I scrape and bow and beg permission to exercise my rights? I think the “shall not be infringed” speaks to bearing arms both open and concealed. Why? Well to parrot the libs – I think it’s “common sense.” I think it is common sense to take the plain meaning and not twist it to fit an ideology that rejects facts and reality.

          Besides – where does the Constitution say I must earn my rights? Maybe liberals should pass screening and take a test and pay a fee before being allowed to spread misinformation.

          No… I wouldn’t want to drop to that level.

        • avatarirock350 says:

          “Also, where does it say that bodyguards of players must defend the attendees?”

          I don’t know, I never said they had too.

          “As for right – just because some states want to regulate the Constitution doesn’t change the right. Where I live, my state does not require a separate license for me to carry any more than I need one to speak my opinion. Go back and read the Constitution. Why should I need a court to approve of the Bill of Rights?”

          I have read the constitution several times, and to answer as to why you need a court to approve the bill of rights you don’t, congress approves amendments to the constitution, however under Article III sec. II the constitution gives the Supreme Court the Authority to make judgments over everything in the constitution.

          “Why should I scrape and bow and beg permission to exercise my rights? I think the “shall not be infringed” speaks to bearing arms both open and concealed. Why? Well to parrot the libs – I think it’s “common sense.” I think it is common sense to take the plain meaning and not twist it to fit an ideology that rejects facts and reality.”

          Ok, if it’s plain meaning you want then why did you skip the section about “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State” What interest does the national militia have with you carrying a gun to an NFL football game? Or is it because the Supreme Court ruled that the second amendment applies to both the individual and to the Federal and State militias, that you have the right to carry in your state. This alone should answer your complaint from above as to why you need the Supreme Court.

          “Besides – where does the Constitution say I must earn my rights? Maybe liberals should pass screening and take a test and pay a fee before being allowed to spread misinformation.”
          Would this spread to you as well?

        • avatarWilliam says:

          Part of my response was to another poster – hence the evident confusion. Read both replies to my comment and that should remedy the confusion..

          I do not understand why you pulled out the old, tired, and debunked opinion that the 2nd Amendment somehow is not an individual right. There is no need to skip the preface of the 2nd Amendment, but since you think so much of the Supreme Court’s opinion of the Constitution, I’m surprised that you didn’t know that they agreed the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.

          The issue at the stadium is not a militia issue – so why muddy it other than it was the only option you could think of? Odd that you must use convoluted wording like that. Just read the amendment without reading into it. As to needing the Supreme Court – we didn’t need them to reaffirm the Constitution. The fact that they listened to the case and formed a judgment on the Constitution is one more symptom of gun-grabbers muddying things up. It should never have gotten to SCOTUS.

          “Would this spread to you as well?” Was this a point? I may be particularly obtuse this evening, but that doesn’t make any sense. Perhaps you think that because I think the Bill of Rights shouldn’t need a rubber stamp from SCOTUS I am spreading misinformation. If so, then maybe you need a better respect for the Constitution. I prefer to think that you were just less than specific in your response.

  11. avatarJoe Grine says:

    I think that any organization that prevents you from protecting yourself while you are on their property should necessesarily become legally responsible for your protection. I propose that states impose a “strict liability” standard on landowners that refuse to allow concealed carry. In other words, the landowner would be held strictly liable for any damages caused by a third party to the victim while that victim is located on the property. If, on the other hand, the landowner permits concealed carry, then the standard of liability would be simple negligence.

  12. avatarRudy says:

    Can’t say about your football, but I’ve been “patrolling” and “guarding” (since I don’t know your terms for that and I have little wish to verbize word “perimeter”) local football (known as soccer to you) stadiums while I served. Local fans sometime behave worse than those Vancouver fans (after Bruins won Cup). AFAIR, local regulations ban any form of weapons and improvised weapons (be it bottles with beverages or tools (say hi to maxswell’s silver hammer and co)). Observing “pack” behavior I couldn’t disagree. We, however, while guarding such events, were limited to batons and shields, sometime even without tear gas.

    So we usually “pacify” by mere presence. Presenting flag, if you wish. Anyway, since my country has little history of handgun CC, I cannot give you any statistic. By what I know that even while we tried to prevent known hooligans from entering on stadiums, searching possible provocateurs, they still were capable to bring flares and smokes (and sometime not only) with them. Plus, in case of fight occurrences, those “hooligans” are well known for their improvisation. Chairs (so-called), portable fences or even not so portable, plus smuggled items – all could be used and used in erupting fights between different fans or fans and LE personnel.

    One part of me agrees, that provocateurs should be banned from carrying dangerous tools into most public places “with greater chances for unrest, because of excited emotional involving”, be they stadiums or some “open air fests” (I doubt there will be brawl on some Symphony Orchestra concert between Rimsky-Korsakov’s and Strauss’ fans). But law-abiding persons – shouldn’t. I know by fact, that many people moves to stadiums from cities’ fringes or even other cities. Some areas are far from being safe. We, as well as LEs are stationed around facilities; we cannot protect people on their way to homes or temporal forms of lodging. So they should rely on themselves.

    And though, as I said, my country has no form of CCW history, I still suppose that law-abiding persons should carry everywhere, with as little obstacles as possible. Because they law-abiding. Gun owner who loves (don’t poke me about improper word usage – my dictionaries have same translation for word I’d like to use, so go figure) his gun, who puts a lot of efforts into training, will not risk losing it under any circumstances. So he (I use male pronoun the same way it was used in second edition of the AD&D game rules, plus I don’t get latest trends to refer everything as “she”, ship is okay, but everything else?) will not drink at bar, or behave aggressively, i.e. any way, that can endanger his license.

    And they should have their right to protects themselves and their loved ones everywhere, every time. On the way to sport event, on sport event, and after. Because otherwise, people either limited to complete ignorance of public events (what for those public events then?), or to putting themselves and their loved ones into possible (emphasis on “possible”) unnecessary risks. You can run away, if you alone. And if with wife? Pregnant one? Sprained ankle?

    So, there is only one question remains unanswered: how to differ good-mannered from brawlers to decide who will carry and who will not? I think there are ways, far beyond relying on people’s good will only, including profiling, better surveillance (anyway, what all those pesky cameras around for?) or, at least, sort of “lay-off areas”. They works in some clubs in Moldova, for example (or so I’ve heard), so why they shouldn’t work anywhere else? Unfortunately, we depends mostly on “those with power” to have guts to issue those or other measures. But playing ostrich is much simpler, ain’t it?

    P.S. Sorry for style – insomnia stikes back.

  13. avatarPatrick from MD says:

    Why is everyone so upset?

    I haven’t been able to afford to go to an NFL game for about 10 years – you know, with with the $200 ticket, $75 parking, $15 beer, $10 hot dog, $300 sports jerseys…

  14. avatarRich says:

    Do not create more gun free zones. That is where all the mass shootings take place. Schools, Universities, Churchs, Post Offices, nall gun free zones. They are a killers dream. Criminals know they will have no resistance in such zones.

  15. avatarAdam Scott Lankford says:

    Crooks will allways and are already carry’n guns everywhere! When they know that honest people are carry’n guns everywhere , crime will shrink!

  16. Pingback: Michelle Malkin | Anti-gun NFL: National Frauds’ League «

  17. Pingback: Anti-gun NFL: National Frauds’ League | PolitiTalk

  18. Pingback: Anti-gun NFL: National Frauds’ League | Tony Johnson

  19. avatarR. Hood says:

    I have been an NFL fan my entire life…. due to their stance on guns I am now boycotting the NFL… I will not watch, buy, or support anything the NFL produces… they are entitled to their opinion but I DO NOT have to support their business… Thanks for pushing me away NFL, I was already on the edge due to the “patty cake” rules concerning hard hits but this cinches it. I will miss supporting my team but I cannot and will not abide this. Goodbye… I hope for your sake there are enough idiots supporting your views to keep you making enough money.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.