(courtesy The Truth About Guns)

“It is no secret that U.S. corporations ban guns in their boardrooms and corporate headquarters,” gunvictimsaction.org “reveals.” “Why? Because they know that guns are dangerous and kill and they want to protect their top officers. Yet the same corporations who protect their CEO from gunfire (and protect all their employees and customers from secondhand smoke) don’t have the ethical integrity to stand up to the gun lobby. A good example is Hallmark cards.” Hallmark cards? Seriously? Seriously . . .

When we asked Hallmark why they do not support universal background checks (a background check for every gun sold) when 90 percent of America does, Hallmark’s Chairman Donald Hall, Jr. replied “We do not get involved in divisive issues.” Divisive?

Yes, divisive.

On one hand you have tens of millions of law-abiding Americans who cherish their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Americans who would not look kindly on Hallmark if they supported “universal background checks” and/or banned legally owned and carried firearms from their stores.

Gun owners who are supported by extremely effective grassroots organizations (e.g. the NRA, GOA) and internet coal mine canaries (e.g., TTAG). Gun owners ready to protect their firearms freedom . . . with their wallet.

On the other hand, you have a small number of gun control advocates clamoring to transform American retailers and restaurants into “gun free” zones. Americans who would disarm citizens in the name of public safety. Supported by the mainstream media, champagne socialists and the Democratic party. Ready to attack firearms freedom any way they can.

As you might imagine from that match-up, it’s no contest, really. The business of America is business. A business can no more afford to pander to a minority of its customers at the expense of the majority of its customers than it can afford to light one-hundred dollar bills on fire.

Which is why Starbucks, Chipotle and Target threaded the needle on gun control. After pressure from the antis, they asked their customers to leave their guns at home – but did nothing to back-up their “request” with the force of law.

Of course, the antis – led by the Bloomberg-owned and operated Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America – declared that a victory. Because they’re smart enough to take what they can get. Outside of gun control bastions like Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, etc., that’s all they’re gonna get. And nothing more.

In the run-up to the 2014 elections, with a lame duck president reduced to anti-gun clucking, the gun control advocates’ ground game is no longer political. It’s all about the money, money, money. Specifically, threatening non-gun-free zone businesses with boycotts. Here’s Boston Globe columnist Renée Loth taking-up the boycott mantle on the behalf of the civilian disarmament complex:

OF ALL the dithering delays plaguing Congress, the most maddening is its inability to do anything about gun violence. Nineteen months after the massacre at the Sandy Hook elementary school, which was supposed to be the turning point on gun policy, Congress has done nothing. Meanwhile, by some estimates, 50,000 additional Americans have been killed by guns. No wonder frustrated citizens are going around Congress to focus on the gun industry itself.

The Campaign to Unload is a new initiative aimed at getting individuals and institutions to divest from gun company stocks that support the manufacture and sale of assault weapons. Some 51 million Americans hold 401(k)s or other retirement funds, and it’s a fair bet many don’t know exactly what they include. Taxpayer dollars and donations to nonprofits prop up pension funds and endowments that can be invested in activities that donors don’t support. Corporate interlocks make it difficult to tease apart the trouble spots: Cerberus Capital Management, the private equity firm that controls Freedom Group — which manufactures the Bushmaster assault rifle used at Sandy Hook — also owns the seemingly innocuous Star Market, Shaw’s, and Steward Health Care System. What’s a responsible consumer to do?

“Seemingly” innocuous Star Market. Ha. Now who’s being divisive? Let’s skip to the close . . .

The gun lobby — with its money, its influence, its cowed members of Congress — thrives on the perception that it is invincible. The Campaign to Unload is a creative strategy to puncture that notion. It gives the majority a voice. And that’s democracy’s most powerful weapon.

Luckily, the majority of Americans (outside of Taxachusetts and its ilk, anyway) don’t favor more gun control laws and we don’t live in a democracy. It’s a Constitutional Republic, with a Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Still, I think it’s time for another pro-2A spend a $2 bill day, yes?

Recommended For You

63 Responses to The Campaign to Unload: Anti-Gunners Fighting Corporate Ground War

  1. “Meanwhile, by some estimates, 50,000 additional Americans have been killed by guns.”

    No one takes an issue with this statement? Even including Suicide by Firearm along with Homicide by Firearm, the numbers dont even com *close*.

    • 2010 gun murders 11,078
      2010 gun suicides 19,392

      I generally see “30,000 gun deaths per year” as a quoted statistic (they hope that you’ll forget most are suicides, but that’s beside the point right at the moment) and this either confirms it, or both are lies.

      Assuming this isn’t a lie:

      Total for that twelve month period 30,470. That works out to roughly 2,500 per month. It has been nineteen months since Sandy Hook. That works out to 47,500. I doubt the recent period has been enough lower than 2010 to justify “not even close.”

      So either you are using a different source for your statistics or you are just confused.

      I am as pro gun as anyone but one must get one’s facts right. If I am wrong about this and the true number really is lower, show me. I’d be happier if the number were lower. Otherwise…

      • Agreed. The 50,000 estimate is probably accurate.

        FYI, some concrete stats from the CDC (link is here) for recent US firearms deaths:

        1999 — 28,874
        2000 — 28,663
        2001 — 29,573
        2002 — 30,242
        2003 — 30,136
        2004 — 29,569
        2005 — 30,694
        2006 — 30,896
        2007 — 31,224
        2008 — 31,593
        2009 — 31,347
        2010 — 31,672

        The total over the 12 years was 364,483. The rate was between 10.0 and 10.5 per 100,000 for each of those years.

        If one assumes 32,000 per year for recent years, you’ll get approximately 51,400 since Sandy Hook.

        • If you are implying this is in the same class as the “90 percent support background checks” bravo sierra, then point me to a source. Until someone does, it looks like, by sheer accident, they actually got this one right.

    • Yeah, but sheeple suck the kool-aid right outta those straws. It’s a good thing sheeple don’t care enough about what they are drinking to move them to action.

  2. Why do antis keep asking companies like Hallmark their stance on gun control? That’s like asking Hallmark, a greeting card company, what their views on gay marriage, abortion, immigration, and the Ukranian conflict are. Why do they care?

    • Exactly. Maybe because they tries other larger and better positioned companies and got a resounding “Thank you for your question. No comment.”

    • I hate to break it to you, but plenty of people DO care what Hallmark’s stance is on gay marriage, abortion, and immigration.

      People obsess over these social issues now and expect every freaking company and organization to toe a specific political line on them, or else suffer the wrath of the consumer. Business can’t just be neutral any more, they all have to “take a stand” against Popular Social Justice Issue XYZ.

    • They asked Hallmark specifically because Hallmark made the NRA enemies list and asked why (some political donation long ago they forgot about). So now they’ve tried to explain that they aren’t NRA enemies, and have made enemies of both sides. I just hate them for inventing new holidays and shaming people into buying crap. Don’t care what they think about guns.

  3. Funny I sent you an article submission for the P320 contest that outlined pretty much this same goal and further explained why it’s truly dangerous to gun owners when we ostracize open carrier events out of hand. Because the Supreme Court has ruled many times that concealed carry is not the right protected by the 2nd amendment, these people know that they can get open carry banned by social pressures and can then work to make concealed carry illegal by laws. We know that because law professors in California are openly asking people to legalize open carry so they can ban concealed carry. Then since you can carry concealed legally your only option is open, but that will be effectively banned due to social pressures. Net result, no one carries. So keep up the good work shaming the open carriers. The anti-gunners are counting on you.

    • I will continue to mock and disdain those who brandish their long arms in defense of their Chipotle burrito as if it’s the American flag at the Benghazi Embassy. There’s a difference between carrying with respect to others and brandishing moronically.

    • Barry: I agree with you that ” . . . it’s truly dangerous to gun owners when we ostracize open carrier events out of hand.” OC demonstrations need to be done tastefully to invite more support than is scared away.
      – – – That said, I understand your thesis that the Anti’s think that: . . . they can get open carry banned by social pressures and can then work to make concealed carry illegal by laws.” I’m just not convinced that it’s the probable outcome. I would be grateful if you would explain why you think they would prove to be correct.
      – – – I think that that strategy would backfire. “. . . law professors in California are openly asking people to legalize open carry so they can ban concealed carry.” Sounds great to me! California is filled with non-conformists. I can easily imagine plenty of people beginning to OC in CA. Granted, it would be shocking to large swaths of CA’s population; yet, they would get used to it.
      – – – My expectation is that the Anti’s wouldn’t get CC outlawed in the same bill that recognizes the liberty to OC. If OC happens at all it would happen first, while maintaining CC. The Anti’s might then follow with a bill to ban CC (as you predict). Those who already have CC permits would oppose invalidation of their exalted privilege. These are (presumably) politically-powerful people. More importantly, those who are shocked by OC will suddenly face a dilemma: A) hope that your prediction is correct and OC is checked by social pressure; or, B) fear that OC will become ever more popular as the OC movement grows – i.e., it becomes a fad. The last thing these shocked Antis will want is for their children to get used to seeing OC. My prediction is that they will “flip” and see a liberalized CC issuing process as a means to stem the tide against popularization of carrying whether openly or concealed.
      – – – Guns are a culture war; no two ways about it. If the Anti’s think they can win this one by recognizing the liberty of OC then, by all means, let’s have that battle of public “fashion statements”. If just 1% or 2% of the members of society are up to the challenge of being non-conformists, then we win.
      – – – I’m not 100% convinced that my expectation is correct while your’s is mistaken. I’m genuinely interested in hearing the arguments why I’m more likely to be wrong and your prediction is more realistic.

  4. I’ll spend several $2 bills, but I’m keeping my Model 66’s and 629.

    I read that “gunvictimsaction article. What a bunch of bogus malarky.

  5. Here’s an idea. A pro-gun group should work with a financial institution to start a “gun fund.” It would be a fund that is only invested in stocks from businesses that manufacture firearms or ammunition, or have subsidiaries that do so. That way, we can collectively show our support for these businesses, and we get a nice bit of change every time the gun control groups start a push or cause a buying panic. It’s a win-win scenario.

  6. To be fair, the thought of someone with a license to carry buying a Hallmark greeting card is enough to give any Hysterical Mother the vapours.

    These people have no leverage aside from Shannon’s Sugar Daddy and his corporate connections. The clock is running out on these extremists and their behaviour is getting stranger by the day. As always they have to be countered with facts, reason and logic but it does not hurt to take a moment and laugh at their antics.

  7. They ban guns in board rooms? Never heard that before, and I have to ask, why? Everyone knows that board rooms are full of wild animals: lions of industry, bears, bulls, and of course the ubiquitous snakes. I would think that a .375 H7H would be mandatory, or at least a .464 Casul..

  8. Chris & JR, I agree 100%. Never confuse these Bloom(berg)ing idiots with actual facts. They also have a difficult time understanding the difference casualties and fatalities. For any Liberal readers, “casualty” means injury, hurt, ouchy, boo-boo, etc…; “fatality” means dead, like belly up goldfish flush it down the toilet dead!

    • Casualty means an injury or a fatality.
      This is precisely the reason why this childish name-calling will hurt us in the end. You give the enemy ammunition when you insinuate their ignorance while blindly displaying your own.

      • BFing, I stand corrected… or rather, reminded, that fatalities are included in casualties but not all casualties are fatalities. Rapid response via SmartPhone isn’t always very smart!

  9. Hallmark should make a “sorry your husband is too much of a p*ssy to take the safety of you and your progeny (if applicable) seriously” card.

    And the gun lobby isn’t invincible. The will of freedom loving Americans on the other hand is. As well as the purposefully written 2nd amendment which exists on the very paper that established our country out of thin air.

    Gotta cut this short, time to head to our conference room for a meeting….while wearing a gun.

  10. That was mighty painful reading. Those people should be called the Campaign to Drop a Pantload.

  11. …the massacre at the Sandy Hook elementary school, which was supposed to be the turning point on gun policy…

    Supposed to be? Supposed by whom? I’d accept “should have been” as pining, but that event wasn’t supposed to be anything.

  12. It seems to me, that the hallmark of a sensible business model is: fulfilling customer needs with goods & services you’re able to provide, politely and economically. Anything else is beyond the scope, often labeled as “giving back to the community” – which Hallmark DOES, like sponsoring their “Hall of Fame” family friendly tv movies.
    Hallmark wisely concluded that comments and actions on this subject aren’t relevant to what they provide.

    TL;DR: Kudos Hallmark, for minding your business best.

  13. Companies that make “assault weapons”?According to most anti-gunners that is any gun that can use a modern self contained cartridge and can shoot more than once per minute.

  14. Well little gun free signs on businesses mean jack s%&t to me and in my state carry no force of law. Concealed means concealed. I still dont spend my money in these places unless I HAVE to though, and 99% of the time I have a better alternative.

  15. “Nineteen months after the massacre at the Sandy Hook elementary school, which was supposed to be the turning point on gun policy, Congress has done nothing.”

    WTF? She makes it sounds like they organized the f’in thing!

  16. actually, a lot of corporations have guns in the boardroom. those private security officers dressed in suits (much like Shannon’s and Midget’s own personal bodyguards) ain’t there because they look impressive. they are armed and provide security for the big dogs if things go south. that’s why they are also assigned as “executive protection” officers and drivers to the corporate big wigs.

    • Dirk, I’ve been in a lot of top-tier boardrooms and have never seen armed security inside a single one of them. Yes, some of the Big Cheeses have armed security — their chauffeurs, for example — but they don’t set foot in the boardroom.

      • Ralph, let me point something out to you from a practitioner’s point of view. Corporate armed security MUST be more discreet than Government Gorillas as a condition of [continued] employment. Just imagine what Bloomie would do to, say, Target’s stock prices if the Mendacious Moms found out their BoD employed people that were armed. And FYI, the boardroom includes the anteroom, since that’s the way you enter in some cases.

        The fact that you saw no guns indicates that they are in fact discreet and still employed, or possibly that you left your x-ray glasses at home on those visits.

    • If 50,000 gun deaths (from all causes including suicide) over a nineteen month period is wildly off, please show me the correct numbers.

      Believe me, I would love for this number to be wrong, but I’ve seen no evidence that it is significantly off.

  17. Has anyone ever sued because they were victimized in a “gun-free” zone? For everything that people can sue for, this seems like a reasonable one, and would be a very effective stick to wield against companies that choose to have stricter gun control policies than their surrounding jurisdictions.

    This is a serious question.

  18. Not to split hairs, but using descriptors like “antis” really downplays the significance of what’s in play, and has been in play since at least 9/11; the complete attack and dismantling of the Bill of Rights. Most battles are won and lost with language, this language does not help the 2As cause.

    • What would you call them? My personal preference is “@ssh0les,” but I’m willing to go with your language.

      • Not sure I’d label “antis” as a group, it oversimplifies the problems we are facing; its not just the 2A that is being attacked, much of the Bill of Rights has been flushed.

  19. This “90 percent of Americans support universal background checks” lie needs to be definitively disproven. As far a I know, this oft repeated claim (say it enough and it becomes the truth) was and is based on a single poll of approximately 1700 voters in the north east part of the country. Which is hardly representative of anything, even assuming it constitutes a “representative and statistically significant sample” (which I don’t know one way or the other). Someone (NRA?) should hire a top notch polling organization to do a REAL poll and let’s see where the chips fall–and I really really doubt that that 90% figure will hold.

    • Intuitively, we know that the 90% figure is nonsense. You can’t get that kind of consensus on very many actual things in life, like even where to go for lunch. You’re certainly nit going to attain authentic agreement at that level for a substantial regulation of a major civil right like keeping and bearing arms. Pollsters can only trump up that kind of phony popularity by keeping the question super simple, devoid of details and framed in idealism.

      Once elaboration and details enter, when it becomes a discussion and no longer a verbal trap, then that specious unanimity vanishes. Actual bills proposed do entail details, and they therefore cannot claim the same supposed mandate as that ginned up by cheap and deceptive polling data.

    • I suspect the actual number would depend on whether the respondents were aware of the current law, and how the question was phrased.

      And what would the NRA do if it turned out that sixty percent of Americans supported universal background checks?

      It’s a lot less than ninety, but then you’d hear “Even the NRA acknowledges that a majority…”

      You and I know that properly, it shouldn’t even be up for a majority vote. Period. By taking an opinion poll there’s some implication that maybe one thinks it ought to be.

      • To get to 90% ask: “Do you favor laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?”

        To go the other way the question is: “Will you consent to having your home and vehicles searched annually to confirm you have no illegal guns that might fall into the hands of criminals?”

  20. Oh dear Gawd… Not that whole we’re a Constitutional Republic thing. That died with the direct election of senators and voting rights of non property owners.

    When this “universal background check” thing comes up for a vote, I would like Congress to quote what part of The Constitution gives them the authority to do so. You know, less they edge closer to the line of tyranny.

  21. Ok… now this is interesting. I clicked the link to check the original story and Barracuda Web Filter blocked the site. Here’s the message:

    The link you are accessing has been blocked by the Barracuda Web Filter because it contains spyware. The name of the spyware is: Spyware.Exploit.Misc.MU

  22. If this unloading idea became a thing, it wouldn’t really mean that Ruger, S&W, etc. would all loose tons of money. They’d just different owners. And those individuals would make ALL of the money that the previous owners would have otherwise benefited from. It would be AWESOMELY sweet.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *