Comcast pulls gun shop ads from cable network

By
February 18, 2013

A gun shop owner said firearm manufacturers, distributors and retailers are being targeted unfairly after Comcast announces it’s dropping all gun shop ads from its nationwide cable network.

The cable company recently acquired NBC Universal and this is a long standing policy there.

When a local ad agency recently placed an order for Williams Gun Sight in Davison Township, it was denied. Owner Tom Wright said he’ll take his business elsewhere.

“I thought it was ridiculous, we are a legitimate business, we have been here for 80 years,” he said.

via  The Gateway Pundit.



AdSense 300×250
NewsMax Trending Now
Comments:
  1. Ragspierre says:

    I live with my mother and drive a minivan. Playing with guns makes me feel like less of a loser.

    It gives me POWER.

    • Ragspierre says:

      BobintehCT, please have the balls to post in your own name…not mine.

      I know you prefer to lie and play the coward’s game, but it can confuse people (which I know you think is cute).

      And TRY to post something NOT inane.

      And, be aware I am totally opposed to playing with guns. Guns, like all power tools, should be used skillfully and with respect for their potential.

      Moron.

      Stretch.

  2. Ragspierre says:

    Simple solution…

    Drop Comcast. They are easily the crappiest of cable providers anyhow.

    Buy time on the radio stations carrying Rush Limbaugh. Much better bang for your buck, anyhow.

    • Sanity says:

      Yes, punish Comcast for thought crime. Your collective loves that.

      • Ragspierre says:

        No, puuuurrrr UnSanity, you lying moron.

        Comcast threw the first punch here.

        I merely advocate punching back, twice as hard.

        HEH!

        And, yes, I DO love that…!!!

        • Sanity says:

          What was the “punch” that Comcast threw? Specifically. Oh, right. Having a policy that hurts your feeling and disagrees with your hate-twisted ideology, i.e. “thought crime”.

          In any event, I highly doubt that Comcast (or anyone else) is too worried about any “punch” that you would throw. Can you even raise your arm without getting winded?

          • Ragspierre says:

            A policy that “hurts my feelings”…?!?!

            No, moron. A policy that stupidly discriminates against makers and marketers of legal, safe products the public demands.

            “…and disagrees with your hate-twisted ideology…”

            What? Individual rights? Freedom of choice, and the natural right of self-defense? You have your lil’ projector running full speed, dunya?

            And the rest is just your butt-hurt ad hominem over being punkd, yet again.

            Heh!

  3. Ragspierre says:

    “H.L. Mencken said: “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.” The 2012 Election makes the Sage of Baltimore’s quip ring true. All the bizarre political, sociological and economic theories that we have heard from the left for years are now being put into practice (in fact, President Obama showcased it in his Second Inaugural and State of the Union speeches). The result is a
    germinating dystopia sprouting from an executive branch contemptuous of the legislative and judicial branches of national government. Barack Obama is the embodiment of a country in willful decline in both domestic and foreign affairs, and he seems to relish his role. The president is a political Dr. Jack Kevorkian assisting our slow, national suicide.

    Maybe some future Gibbon will contemplate the wreckage.” –Bill Croke

    Wow! That was so brilliant…and sounded so much like me…I just had to rub that in the trollish faces…!!!!

    Heh!

    • Sanity says:

      Hilarious that an unsourced opinion piece, which itself is source-free, gives you such a raging semi, you can barely contain yourself. Your world literally is a flabby circle jerk where you and your fellow shut-ins shit your pants, pass it around, and tell each other how clever you are.

      And meanwhile, you continue to lose elections.

      “In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican.”

      –H. L. Mencken

      • Ragspierre says:

        Puuuurrr UnSanity.

        My refusal to be who you actually are (bitter, angry, insane with hatred, wollowing in obscene name-calling, etc.) really has you in full spew-mode…!!!

        I LOVE that…!!!

        Hey. I won in all the elections I voted in save one…and we all lost in that one.

  4. Ragspierre says:

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/02/ny-democratic-bill-will-require-gun-owners-to-carry-million-dollar-liability-insurance/

    Deemocrat Collectivists want to impose an insurance requirement on anybody who owns a typewriter, word-processor, or pencil.

    Oh. Wait…

    • Sanity says:

      Oh dear. You freaks are finally going to have to start taking personal financial responsibility for being IRRESPONSIBLE with guns. Like when you shot 5 people on gun appreciation day. Get over yourself. Why should anyone else pay the bill when one of you morons shoots someone?

      • Ragspierre says:

        Wow, UnSanity, you really let that point go whoooooshing over your head…!!!

        I know you are too stupid to live, but firearms owners who are…in fact…”IRRESPONSIBLE” with guns are already made to pay for their IRRESPONSIBILITY. (See, I’m making fun of your screaming bullshit…which is true on so many levels. Heh!)

        Just like if I am irresponsible with a ladder, you poor, stupid, totalitarian-urging, Collectivist liar.

        Your Collective cannot compel free individuals to buy insurance to exercise a basic civil right.

        Sorry to break this to ya…!!! Or OFF in ya…!!!

        • Sanity says:

          “I know you are too stupid to live, but firearms owners who are…in fact…”IRRESPONSIBLE” with guns are already made to pay for their IRRESPONSIBILITY. (See, I’m making fun of your screaming bullshit…which is true on so many levels. Heh!)”

          Yeah, you’re “making fun” – otherwise known as demonstrating your textbook wingnut obtuseness. How are irresponsible firearm owners made to pay for their irresponsibility? Specifically.

          “Your Collective cannot compel free individuals to buy insurance to exercise a basic civil right.”

          Really? It’s a basic civil right to negligently shoot someone? Get your money back from the “law school” you attended. And take a seminar on insurance.

        • Sanity says:

          Another patriot persecuted for exercising his god-given right to shoot people.

          http://bigstory.ap.org/article/orange-county-shooting-spree-leaves-several-dead

          No problem. The victims and their families can sue his ghost!

    • Sanity says:

      You’re a pretend lawyer on the internet. So how about a hypothetical:

      Jimmy owns a gun. Jimmy wants to show his support for people who own guns by going to gun appreciation day, taking his gun with him. Jimmy accidentally shoots Bob, causing personal and economic injuries to Bob. Bob must be taken to the hospital. Expensive surgery must be performed on Bob. Bob must stay in the hospital for a couple of days. Bob misses time from work. Etc.

      Who is responsible for, and should therefore pay for Bob’s injuries?

      a. Bob
      b. Taxpayers
      c. Jimmy

      • Ragspierre says:

        I am a real attorney everywhere, you lying POS.

        Here’s your answer.

        Just as if Jimmy took his hot-rod (that’s a car…not what you suck) to a meet and carelessly hurt Bob, tort law provides the remedy.

        You moron.

        • Sanity says:

          Yeah, dip shit, and the tort remedy 99 times out of a hundred involves the insurance company defending Jimmy, and settling / paying a verdict – because Jimmy likely doesn’t have several hundred thousand dollars laying around to defend the lawsuit. This is what people who are not brainless twits like you, understand as the “free rider” problem. It’s why we have insurance, dumb fuck.

          Before you ever call someone a moron, you should learn what insurance is.

          • Ragspierre says:

            Ummm…

            You need to read your post, moron.

            See, your self-contradictory bullshit assumes that Jimmy has insurance.

            He is NOT a free-rider. Is he?

            Actually, we could go further. Say Bob has insurance that pays for part of his loss.

            The insurance company goes after Jimmy. See, I do this for a living, you poor stupid, ignorant puke.

            Gawd, you make this SOOOOOOOO easy.

      • Ragspierre says:

        Should lil’ Sandy FLUCK be made to take out a million-dollar policy for her to be allowed to engage in profligate sex…or any sex?

        Or should the tax-payer foot the bill?

        Moron.

        • Sanity says:

          That analogy proves you are literally too stupid to breathe and walk at the same time.

          And that you don’t know what liability insurance is for.

          • Ragspierre says:

            au contraire mon frère!

            What is shows is you are quite willing to burden civil rights in your drive toward totalitarianism, and YOU have no concept of much of anything free people enjoy and care about.

            The insurance gambit has nothing to do with “responsibility” and all to do with doing what your Collective SWEARS they don’t want to do…disarm law-abiding free people.

            A lie. No wonder you love it!

      • Ragspierre says:

        Here, since you were boggled by my Sandy FLUCK hypo, let me see if I can posit one you CAN comprehend…

        Should any of us be required to put up a million-dollar bond before we can invoke our rights under the Fifth Amendment?

        Because, if we do, we make proving a crime against us more expensive, do we not?

        (Don’t hurt yourself spewing more filthy names in NOT dealing with the question, please. I hate it when I so obviously give you pain. Really.)

        • Sanity says:

          The Fluke analogy isn’t “boggling”. It’s a deluded fallacy propagated by a moron who doesnt know what liability insurance is for. Why? Because the facts do not resemble the fact pattern of a negligent tortfeasor shooting someone. And because there is no reasonable scenario in which one person’s consensual bedroom acts might invoke the need for liability insurance. Again, learning about what liability insurance is for, might help you understand the difference.

          And your analogies get stupider by the second. How many cases do you know of where one’s exercise of her 5th amendment caused physical and/or economic injuries to another? To the extent that that a state might have a policy interest in requiring liability insurance.

          Zero.

          Fallacy.

          • Ragspierre says:

            “And because there is no reasonable scenario in which one person’s consensual bedroom acts might invoke the need for liability insurance.”

            Really? What is the incidence of STDs in the US right now?

            And who is talking about limiting this to “liability insurance”, moron?

            The point is your Collective may not burden our exercise of a civil right by imposing a cost, fee, excise, what-the-fluck-ever.

            See…???

        • Sanity says:

          “Because, if we do, we make proving a crime against us more expensive, do we not?”

          Which makes no sense in the context of liability insurance. Moreover, no one is proposing that gun owners put up a 1 million dollar bond.

  5. Ragspierre says:

    I play with guns because I am unable to maintain an erection.

    • Ragspierre says:

      BobintehCT, we really do understand.

      You probably have a real problem with self-esteem, which is totally justified.

      You are a liar and coward, who has a serious identity problem that causes you to post under my name.

      No wonder you can’t perform. Even to “play with your gun”.

  6. Ragspierre says:

    O/T again, but too good to miss…

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/341019/obama-calls-his-own-idea-meat-cleaver-approach-bad-idea-andrew-johnson

    Obama, who threatened to veto the bill if it didn’t contain the sequester, is doing the same ol’ demagogue meme we always see when a “cut” is in contemplation…

    the first thing these thugs talk about curtailing are essential services. Oh, and starving babies.

    Despicable.

  7. Ragspierre says:

    My neighbor has a howitzer. His penis must be smaller than mine. Sad.

    • Ragspierre says:

      BobintehCT, we really do understand.

      You probably have a real problem with self-esteem, which is totally justified.

      You are a liar and coward, who has a serious identity problem that causes you to post under my name.

      This could explain why you are so focused on my penis.

      Can you even see yours without a mirror? And tweezers…???

  8. Ragspierre says:

    O/T again, but anybody with a brain wants t o know, since she was breaking the law, what is the EPA trying to hide…???

    http://freebeacon.com/whole-lotta-redactin-going-on/

  9. Ragspierre says:

    O/T yet again. My pants feel unusually tight today. Mom says I’m getting fatter but I think that the pants are shrinking.

    Flucking cheap pants!

    • Ragspierre says:

      BobintehCT, we really do understand.

      You have previously self-identified as not having a brain, and burrowing so far up Obama’s butt you can report on his stomach contents.

      You are excused from having any healthy curiosity as to why the crazy EPA administrator illegally used a back-channel email account, and why the EPA is illegally hiding the contents from a FOIA order.

  10. Sanity says:

    “What is shows is you are quite willing to burden civil rights in your drive toward totalitarianism, and YOU have no concept of much of anything free people enjoy and care about.”

    Maybe in the fever-dream bubble you live in. Sane people know that there are reasonable restrictions on all civil rights.

    “The insurance gambit has nothing to do with “responsibility” and all to do with doing what your Collective SWEARS they don’t want to do…disarm law-abiding free people.”

    Ah, the paranoid delusions of an internet clown. Prove it. Oh, wait, you *know* it. That’s all the proof you need.

    “A lie.”

    What “lie”? Specifically.

    • Ragspierre says:

      “Maybe in the fever-dream bubble you live in. Sane people know that there are reasonable restrictions on all civil rights.”

      Yes. And I…contra you…am a reasonable person.

      But prohibition is not “reasonable”. There are thousands of gun-control laws on the books now. Connecticut has very strict gun-control laws. Does it not? Chicago’s laws are unconstitutional. Are they not?

      The lie, you liar, is that you and your Collective are not driving to disarm law-abiding people.

      • Sanity says:

        “But prohibition is not ‘reasonable.'”

        Prohibition of WHAT? Specifically. What specifically does the second amendment guarantee you? Specifically. This might require you going to the text of the amendment itself.

        • Ragspierre says:

          As always, it is not my job to educate your ignorant ass.

          Read the Supreme Court rulings, moron.

          At its essence, the entire Bill of Rights INTENDS to limit government from impinging on our natural rights, the right of effective self-defense…against any threat…being one.

  11. Sanity says:

    “See, your self-contradictory bullshit assumes that Jimmy has insurance.”

    You can’t be this stupid.

    No, dip shit. I assume that he is the negligent tortfeasor. You assume that Jimmy will pay for his negligence out of his pocket. I assume that in the real world, Jimmy probably can’t do that. Which is why he should have liability insurance.

    “He is NOT a free-rider. Is he?”

    If he doesn’t have insurance or cant pay out of pocket, YES HE IS.

    “Actually, we could go further. Say Bob has insurance that pays for part of his loss.”

    You really are a moron. So it’s your position that the risk of Jimmy’s negligence should be shifted to Bob’s insurance company – even if he has insurance. In other words, Bob should pay premiums to counter the risk of a negligent gun owner shooting him.

    You really dont understand liability insurance.

    “The insurance company goes after Jimmy. See, I do this for a living, you poor stupid, ignorant puke.”

    Sure you do.

    What happens when Jimmy is judgment proof? As almost every uninsured person is. The insurance company doesnt bother. And Bob’s premiums go up.

    Because you want negligent Jimmy to be able to shoot people.

    • Ragspierre says:

      “You assume that Jimmy will pay for his negligence out of his pocket.”

      That is a lie, and you a liar. Quote where I state that.

      “In other words, Bob should pay premiums to counter the risk of a negligent gun owner shooting him.”

      Bob certainly MAY do that, just as he already does to cushion the loss if Jimmy lets his ladder fall off his truck in traffic, or if Jimmy negligently allows a tree to fall on Bob. Or any number of other potential causes of casualty we could name.

      But, see, the gun makes no difference here, does it? It is merely a superstitious thing you fear.

      And the whole insurance gambit is just a lying subterfuge you would like to use to take guns out of the hands of law-abiding people (the poorest law-abiding people), you totalitarian puke.

      • Sanity says:

        If Jimmy’s ladder falls off his truck in traffic, chances are Jimmy has, wait for it – liability insurance that covers such an occurrence. Why? In part because there is a reasonably foreseeable risk that a negligently stowed ladder could cause injury. This risk is so significant, that if Jimmy (or his employer) has pays premiums for coverage to guard against being made personally liable therefor.

        If Jimmy negligently allows a tree (presumably on his property) to fall on Bob, Jimmy has – wait again, liability insurance to pay Bob. If Jimmy cannot afford homeowners insurance, his lender pays for it, and later passes the cost on to Jimmy? Why, because a tree falling from Jimmy’s property onto Bob is precisely the sort of risk homehowers insurance policies anticipate.

        If Jimmy is standing next to Bob in public, and Jimmy accidentally shoots Bob, what insurance already covers this tort?

        • Ragspierre says:

          “…chances are Jimmy has, wait for it – liability insurance…”

          Wooopsi. Now you are cutting your own throat! Again.

          YOU ASSumed Jimmy is a judgment-proof tortfeasor before.

          Now…characteristically…you are reversing yourself. NOW Jimmy has ALLLLLL kinds of insurance!!!

          Whadda punk-assed b!tch…!!!

          “If Jimmy is standing next to Bob in public, and Jimmy accidentally shoots Bob, what insurance already covers this tort?”

          There isn’t a tort, moron. It was an accident. Accidents are not acts of negligence.

          Gawd, you are BOTH dishonest and stooooOOOOooopid…!!!

    • Ragspierre says:

      “Because you want negligent Jimmy to be able to shoot people.”

      Now you have descended…once again…into slobbering stupid.

      A locale you occupy mostly often!

  12. Ragspierre says:

    All this talk of torts has made me hungry. Mom and I are off to 7 11 for microwave burritos. Gonna have to roll the windows down on the ride back!

    • Ragspierre says:

      BobintehCT, like most writers of fiction, you write from your own experience.

      Except in the case of honest fiction writers, you are both a liar and coward who posts under my name.

  13. Ragspierre says:

    Wow…!!!

    “Jimmy” of UnSanity works in the White House!!!

    “I said, ‘Jill, if there’s ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, put that double-barreled shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house,’” he said, and urged viewers, in closing, “Buy a shotgun, buy a shotgun!”