Gun Rights Advocates Have to Play the Long Game to Fight Corporate Gun Control

Anne Finucane Bank of America Gun Control Policy

Bank of America vice chairman Anne Finucane courtesy politico.com

“Simply put, that has to change. Few American communities (including the pro-life community) are better organized and more mobilizable than the gun-rights community, and it’s time to shine at least as bright a spotlight on corporate gun control as the one that illuminates governmental gun restrictions, the more traditional focus of the NRA. But not even the mighty NRA can generally force corporations to change course in the absence of government intervention.

“Corporations are entities that possess their own constitutional rights. Yet the NRA can seek to inform and persuade. Gun-rights proponents can invest in alternative platforms. Young conservatives can and should seek career paths in tech and other key industries to break up the monoculture.

“In other words, while doing our best to make arguments in the here and now, it’s imperative for gun-rights proponents to play the corporate long game, just as they did in their remarkably successful 30-year campaign to liberalize gun laws. The ability to preserve a functioning gun industry and the free flow of information about firearms may well depend on it. Corporations have entered the fight, and gun-rights supporters are mainly on the outside, looking in.” – David French Corporate Gun Control Might Be the Worst Threat to Gun Rights [via nationalreview.com]

comments

  1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    Corporations have entered the fight because they’re too stupid to realize that a dozen people can launch an online campaign and make themselves look like hundreds of thousands of people. Once they realize that they’re alienating millions of potential customers to bend to the will of a handful of unemployed losers living in their moms’ basements they’ll be kicking themselves.

    1. avatar Omer says:

      Those alienated customers need to alienate themselves AND give notice to the company of their dissatisfaction. If that does not occur then they’re all just spitting in the wind.

    2. avatar pg2 says:

      Corporations depend on the money supply, which is is owned and controlled by the small group of people what want global control, and your guns rights are one of the last things standing in their way.

    3. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

      “Once they realize that they’re alienating millions of potential customers to bend to the will of a handful of unemployed losers living in their moms’ basements they’ll be kicking themselves.”

      Er, *no*, they won’t.

      They don’t CARE, Gov. They are proud to be taking the position that they do.

      As far as they are concerned, this battle is no less righteous than the abolitionists of the 1870s. Even though many are atheist, they literally consider themselves to be on a mission from God.

      The only thing they respect is force. We need to be bringing that force with all the vigor of the civil rights advocates during the 1960s…

      1. avatar MarkPA says:

        Regrettably, you might be right. Nevertheless, there are ways to make even a large corporation to act rationally.

        Suppose someone maintained a web-site of corporate advertising policies. Some place where a consumer could look up a company – say AT&T or Verizon – and discover where they spend their advertising dollars. Maybe AT&T advertises on Google but Verison doesn’t; or vice versa. Maybe Verison advertises in home-town newspapers whereas AT&T advertises in the NYTimes.

        Suppose further that the corporations are indexed by industry and product line; thus, one may look-up the advertising practices of telephone companies and determine whether to subscribe to a long-distance telephony service based – in part – upon where the competing vendors spend their advertising budgets.

        Corporate policies on other matters might also be interesting subject matter. Do AT&T or Verison support or suppress conservation, global-warming, civil-rights and so forth?

        Consumers of diverse political sentiments could use such a resource to decide – in part – whether to patronize the products and services of competing corporations. The effect would – I suspect – temper the enthusiasm of corporate-SJWs to confine their support to causes that their customer base support and to avoid engaging in political discourses that aren’t intrinsically related to their industry.

        Gun owners comprise 1/3 of the households in the US; perhaps more. If any significant percentage of that affinity group diverted it’s business from one corporation to another, the effect would become apparent in the bottom line within a quarter or two.

        The immediate impact would probably be on ad placement with the Masters of the Universe.

        1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

          Mark, I’m not interested in a ‘separate but equal’ space to express an opinion. YouTube et. all must, when acting as a public square, allow *all* voices to be heard, especially the ones they don’t like.

          THEY are the ones demanding inclusiveness and acceptance. It’s high time they lived up to their own rules, Alinsky-style ‘Rules for Radicals’…

      2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        Well if all we’ve got to worry about is the handful of business leaders who put personal politics over their shareholders’ profits we win. Easily.

  2. avatar FedUp says:

    If 100 million gun owners were willing to work in concert for their own benefit, we could take the scorched earth approach to the short game, and ‘corporate gun control’ would end the day after the first corporate bankruptcy filing.

  3. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    In one respect the left-wing hippies from the 1970s were correct. Corporations are the enemy of Liberty. The best way to fight a billion dollar company is to not buy their products. Send them your purchase receipt of their competitors product with a note about their anti gun attitude.

    Ask them why they have armed guards at company locations? And then why you can’t have a gun for protection?

    I think this will become a new version of the “class struggle”. The rich, or connected get guns and the regular person does not.

    My left-wing father used to talk about this type of corporate/class BS all the time. Only now you have Left wingers who joined these companies and are putting their political orientation into the corporate thinking.

  4. avatar James morris says:

    Gun manufacturers should refuse to do business with NY state no guns for cops.

    1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      That’s a pretty big market they would need to shut themselves out of. Keep in mind, they have shareholders to answer to. Gun manufacturers are corporations, too.

      I’m reminded of Jimmy Carter’s grain embargo upon the Soviet Union back in the 1970’s. The Soviets found other sources for their grain, we became an unreliable supplier in the eyes of the world, U.S. grain prices plummeted and the only ones to suffer were American farmers.

      1. avatar David says:

        That’s because Carter was an abject idiot and failed to do as Trump would do: employ sanctions against countries that didn’t go along with the embargo.

    2. avatar Justsomeguy says:

      Amen.

      And yes, I know it’s a difficult thing to ask

    3. avatar DesertDave says:

      I seem to remember that Barrett did that with CA some time ago. No fifties for YOU!! As I recall they will no longer even repair or warranty for CA agencies.

  5. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    Part of the agenda of all those NRA Banquets can be sending letters to companies pointing out their anti-gun position. And organizing boycotts of products and announcing that boycott on the internet. Send a picture of your attendees to them as well. Large groups of people will get a corporations attention.

    1. avatar Chris T from KY says:

      Add Eric Church to that list of those that are boycotted. And also any company that an Entertainer happens to advertise for can be also boycotted and then information sent to that Entertainer and the company that they advertise for.

  6. I DON’T buy the thought that private companies have some form of sovereign immunity. As if they have gone Empire and become sovereign foreign countries unto themselves… as with the dangerous of liberal socialism… There is the danger ultraconservatism that companies and corporations are supreme entities that can interfere with the constitutional rights of a citizen under their employment. I believe this is faulty logic… just as the same faulty logic that suggest private landlords can do the same. Telling a tenant they can’t have a Bible in the home because the landlord said it wasn’t in the lease. Or the property management company doesn’t want its residents to possess any kind of weapons in their Apartments…The RINO/DemoCommie operated Chicom bloc states of M-assachusetts/NJ/CA./NY./MD. , has been allowing some companies and private landlords to run over a citizens constitutional rights roughshod…By use of Liberal activist Judges in the court system. If all this bullshit was longstanding and constitutionally sound . We wouldn’t have even made it out of the American Revolutionary War– let alone the Civil War… I say the whole thing is plain nonsense and we all better be fighting back tooth and nail…Because a right taken , is never returned….

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      John Q. Public,

      I am on the same page.

      Having said that, we would be wise to recognize reality. Without a timeless and authoritative standard of right and wrong, everything becomes a shouting match and devolves to “might makes right”. That is why we see so much turmoil everywhere in the world.

      Unfortunately, our sinful human nature will never allow the world to settle on a timeless and authoritative standard of right and wrong. Such a standard gets in the way of people whose hearts and minds lust after perversion, stealing, murder, and tyranny.

  7. avatar DerryM says:

    We need:

    1) Resources to identify those Corporations/Companies engaged in Anti Second Amendment activity and policy.
    2) Resources to identify those Corporations/Companies engaged in Pro Second Amendment activity and policy.
    3) The individual and collective will to oppose/boycott those in category #1 and support those in category #2 with our patronage and dollars.

    Simple. Let the fight begin.

    In general, Americans who want to preserve our Constitutional Republic need to begin actively fighting the Progressive Left’ Marxist/Socialist agenda on every level. We also need to demand a Convention of the States to develop and put before the States Amendments in accordance with Article V of the Constitution to rectify the damage the Progressives have done over the past 100+years, including imposing Term limits on Congress and Appointment Term Limits on Judicial [including SCOTUS] and Bureaucratic Appointees among other things.

    1. Might as well ask for litmus test for all judges…With all that is going in the USA…The Deep State would interfere…All the RINOs/DemoCommies would sabotage it politically…Problably using it to eliminate, destroy, or undermine the Bill of Rights…As is THEIR intent…Any thoughts of where we stand…Just ask for a straight answer about what happened in Las Vegas…See how that one goes….I DON’T trust the whole lot of our politicians…

      1. avatar DerryM says:

        So, basically, as far as you are concerned there’s nothing to be done except sit by clinging to a fatalist attitude and let the Left have their way…maybe you need to seriously re-examine your point of view.

        Read Article V. The States CAN call a Convention of States and propose Amendments to the Constitution, which go to the States, bypassing Congress, and be validly ratified and added to the Constitution. The call for a Convention of the States originates with the States, is conducted by the States and the results are by the ratification of the States. It takes 2/3 of the States to call the Convention (34 States) and 3/4 of the States to ratify new amendments (38 States). The call is voted by the State Legislatures. Participating States can send Delegations of any number they want, but EACH State gets only ONE (1) vote for Amendments proposed and in final ratification (which also requires 3/4 of the States). It is not an easy thing to accomplish, but about 11 States have already passed Legislation making the call.

        The Left opposes a Convention of the States because they say it could “undo 115 years of Progressivism”…which is exactly what we need to restore the original Constitutional Republic at this time. Perhaps you do not see that the point of view you express fundamentally supports the Left’s position.

        There may be risks of “unintended consequences” resulting from a Convention of States. Currently, The United States is at a stalemate politically and socially. The status quo is a slow death for the American Republic and other alternatives are equally destructive.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Guys, Gals, Whatever…..

          A constitutional convention has no power. Period. All it can do is argue endlessly (we long ago lost the brilliance of the founders) over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Then, maybe, the convention can propose amendments to be sent to the states (via some unknown mechanism). From that point on, the current political system takes over: Congress decides how the states will vote to ratify proposed amendments; there is no time limit on how long Congress can wait to inform as to how the ratification vote is to be conducted; states do whatever they will do in organizing the vote. Whatever power structure is present in the states will control whether or not an amendment is ratified. If we do not already have the overwhelming majorities in a sufficient number of states, we will not have that overwhelming majority to ratify any amendment proposed by a convention of states.

          A constitutional convention will not save us from ourselves. We (the people) are the reason we are in this mess. If we cannot “win” now, we cannot “win” if a convention released proposed amendments tomorrow. With 100 million gun owners, why are we at this point in our republic? Whatever the reason, those same 100 million gun owners will respond to proposed amendments just as they have responded to gun control legislation; quietly, lethargically, discombobulated. Change that equation, and there is no need for a constitutional convention. The solution is in the hands of all gun owners, as is the responsibility for failure.

        2. avatar DerryM says:

          The Constitution of the United States of America
          Article V
          “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”
          I love how you “Guys, Gals, Whatever…” keep citing the Leftist memes that a Convention of States to propose Amendments to the Constitution is dangerous. Undeniably adding Amendments to the Constitution was designed to be difficult and those working to get a State’s Convention understand that. Your alternative to just “do nothing” and hope it all works out owing to pathetically weak excuses beyond those you’ve borrowed from the Left is a tactic that will get you more of the same from the past 60+ years, and worse. Be sure to tell your Grand Children how you advocated for “doing nothing” and explain why your posterity to them is a dystopian pig sty.

          A Convention of States to propose Amendments to the Constitution will not likely even consider 2A rights because there are far deeper issues to be resolved to revive the Republic such as imposing Term Limits on elected and appointed officials and judges, and resolving the National and Unfunded Debt.

          Sam I Am is right about one thing, though. “We (the people) are the reason we are in this mess.”

    2. avatar Kendahl says:

      The last thing we want is a constitutional convention. It would be an open invitation to the left and to the deep state to write a new constitution that gives them a free hand and provides no protection to the rest of us. The constitution we have now is just fine. What we need are judges, especially at the level of the US Supreme Court, who will follow it as intended by its authors.

      1. avatar DerryM says:

        The Constitution as it is now is exactly what the Left has made it so as to destroy the Republic. There are many Federal Judges who take few, if any cases, but we’re still paying their Salary. SCOTUS is inert. COTUS will not change until forced to by the States and the People. The National Debt is over 20 trillion and unfunded Debt is 140 trillion.
        So, if all that works for you. It’s fine with me. I’ll keep working for change.

    3. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

      “We also need to demand a Convention of the States…”

      Far too dangerous, IMO.

      We’re basically on the right course. SCOTUS will likely be respecting the 2A again in the near future. Precedent set by the court will protect our rights long enough for the real sea-change.

      When a history is developed that proves armed civilian defense cuts crime drastically, people will be far less inclined to allow those rights to be infringed.

      That will “fundamentally transform the United States of America”, as someone once said…

      1. avatar DerryM says:

        Nope. Saying a Convention of States is “far too dangerous” plays exactly to what the Left wants you to believe because they are terrified of the prospect and will fight it tooth and nail. Banking on SCOTUS to “likely be respecting the 2a again in the future” is an uncertainty at this time. Counting on “a history is developed that proves armed civilian defense cuts crime drastically” is a pipe dream. It has already been established that armed civilian defense cuts crime drastically, but that message remains buried in Leftist lies and propaganda.
        The Left has succeeded far too long because Americans keep denying that they have succeeded and doing nothing about it.

  8. avatar 7.62x54r says:

    I got notice from Basspro the other day that their credit card is switching from BoA to Capital One. Is Basspro the dumper or dumpee?

    1. avatar Justsomeguy says:

      I would like to know that too. Capitol one really did good by my family several years ago. If i knew they were reliable, I might do some more business with them.

  9. avatar Huntmaster says:

    So if my representative is doing a really great job, is responsive to his or her constituency and a leader in sponsoring good legislation I can’t send him or her back to Washington because of some arbitrary term limit law? In what universe is that even rational? That kinde of simple thinking is how we arrived at the direct election of senators.

    1. avatar Anymouse says:

      If you’re unilaterally applying term limits, you’re hindering your other causes. The other reps aren’t term limited, and seniority places a replacement rep at a disadvantage for committees, etc. It needs to be applied to everyone to be effective. As for term limits themselves, incumbents have many advantages, such as franking privilege, media access, party connections, lobbyist money, etc. They have a 90%+ reelection rate. If they aren’t in a competitive district, they essentially have a job for life. This is contrary to the original citizen representative concept. Someone who spends decades out of their district has trouble representing that district. I support consecutive term limits, so a popular rep could go for a different office, or sit out an election and come back again, like Jerry Brown in CA.

  10. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Young conservatives can and should seek career paths in tech and other key industries to break up the monoculture.

    I have this unshakable conviction that your career path will be quite abysmal if you openly admit that you are Conservative and advocate Conservative policies in the Technology industry.

    And here is why: your Progressive peers (in all industries, including Technology) only care about emotion and their notion of virtue. If you cross them, you will be on their $hit list until you leave the company. At best that means your Progressive peers will refuse to “play nice” with you. At worst, your Progressive peers will sabotage your efforts. Either way, management will ask you to resign for not being a “team player”.

    As with anything else, this cannot be won on the individual level. What we really need are Conservative companies to compete with Progressive companies in the Technology industry. Everyone likes a winner and success (both in Technology and financial terms) will attract quality people to such a company — both as customers and partners/employees.

  11. avatar Rocketman says:

    Many CEO’s of banks and credit card companies are “educated” at IVY league schools and have little or no regard for gun rights or for that matter the Constitution. But they do have shareholders and those shareholders can give the CEO a vote of “no confidence” if quarter after quarter the company steadily losses money and kick out the anti-gun CEO. All that takes long term time and effort on the pro-gun owners part. That and regular corporate protests of gun owners at the company headquarters. Don’t expect a lot of media coverage though as the press is nearly always on the side of the gun banners.

  12. avatar C.S. says:

    For years the Obama administration has been shoving into corporate america democrat party sociofascists. How else can the major tech companies silence Alex Jones all at the same time on a weekend?

  13. avatar pg2 says:

    These comments are a solid indication that most people have absolutely no idea what is going, or what they are up against. That’s why were losing and will lose this in the long run. You can’t win battle when you don’t even who or what your enemy is.

  14. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    The three L’s Libertarians Liberals and the Left, have all said “free speech” is only lost when the government denies you your rights.

    I have never supported this warped thinking.

  15. avatar Infidel762X51 says:

    All the gun and ammo companies need to come together and stop selling guns and ammo to any security or armored car company doing business with these banks. Additionally no trainer should certify or recertify anyone from any company doing business with these banks. If they don’t want anything to do with guns we should give them their wish.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “All the gun and ammo companies need to come together and stop selling guns and ammo to any security or armored car company doing business with these banks. Additionally no trainer should certify or recertify anyone from any company doing business with these banks. If they don’t want anything to do with guns we should give them.”

      This explains why it took Mike an entire book to “grok people”. Here we have a recommendation to financially punish banks and companies by refusing (and encouraging refusal) to do business with anti-gun entities. We are attempting to punish anti-gun entities with loss of revenue by encouraging pro-gun entities to forfeit revenue by refusing to do business with anti-gun entities. If we think a noticeable drop in sales would discipline anti-gun businesses, why do we think a noticeable drop in sales BY pro-gun businesses would reward said businesses? We want both pro and anti-gun businesses to lose revenue.

  16. avatar Ray Lake says:

    I have closed my 30 year old Bank of America accounts. I sent an email to B of A telling them that I would do this and they just responded with a prepared statement from this clueless vice chairman.

    I have also put my Citi and Chase credit cards in a drawer. They have zero balance, but it’s a credit hit to cancel them so I will just let them sit.

    I quit shopping at Walmart years ago when they made their first anti-handgun announcement. I figure that Walmart can choose to carry any products they want and it’s just a marketing decision, but when they announce it with great fanfare, it’s a political statement.

    I have also posted on Facebook about this. If a few million gun owners would do this, it might get their attention.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email