Dana Loesch and Superbeets by Humann

Humann Corporation is the marketing company behind Superbeets.  It is a weight loss and energy drink.

Recently on television, Dana Loesch was their spokesperson.

Ms. Loesch is of course the past provocateur and passionate spokesperson for the National Rifle Association (NRA). 

Here is a message I sent to Humann via messager, a post on their facebook page, an email to the company, a chat message, now here on the blog and will post on facebook on the political pages.

It is inconceivable to me how you could have taken on a spokesperson like Dana Loesch.

 

She is one of the most divisive provocateurs in our culture today.  Her strong ties to the National Rifle Association has positioned her as a gun toting right wing zealot.

 

By your association with Ms. Loesch, you have closely tied your organization and product to the National Rifle Association.  The NRA is partly responsible for all the mass shootings in America.    

 

There are plenty of people that will not use your product because of your ties with Dana Loesch, including me.

 

I will write about this on my blog, post on social media and make sure my fellow Democrats know about this.

Why gun rights are different than other rights

With the national convention of the National Rifle Association (NRA) this weekend, it is a great time to examine gun rights.  As one of the most powerful special interest groups in Washington and in every state capital, the association gets its perverted way more than not.  It has evolved from an organization that was promoting safety and use of firearms to a “civil rights” group that is fueled by manufactures whose only interest is to sell more guns.

The NRA has it wrong for the most part.  They believe that any regulation of guns is going against what the founders had planned for us.  But, of all the rights we retained in our social contract with one another and with the signing of the Constitution, the right to bear arms is different.  It warrants greater restrictions than others because of the differences.

First, rights retained are not absolute.  If the community has a compelling reason it can restrict a right.  If the exercise of a right by an individual will directly cause harm to someone, the community not only has the right but the compelling responsibility to restrict it. 

Next, all rights have been restricted.  Speech has been restricted by fighting words, pornography and libel.  Assemblies of people can’t restrict the movement of emergency vehicles.  The property we own can’t have structures that may cause harm to the neighbors.  Even the right to face an accuser can be revoked it if is reasonable to believe that the witness’ safety is in grave danger. 

Finally, and perhaps the most important issue, the full exercise of the right to bear arms carries with it a risk that no other right carries.  If someone is shot and killed, the victim can’t stand up and respond.  Yet, if a speech is given that criticizes a politician for his policies the politician can stand up to respond.  If a group of people assemble to protest that same politician’s policy, he can gather another group of people to assemble in support of his policies.  No one is directly harmed.  But, when someone is shot and killed, all rights are lost at that point.

We didn’t give up the right to own weapons, the NRA has that correct.  Many people disagree on the meaning of the second amendment, but in the end, it does provide at the very least the right to own weapons.  But, a right retained doesn’t mean we also didn’t provide the community with the responsibility to insure a safe and peaceful environment.  A community may not prevent ownership of weapons to members in good standing but it does have the right to reasonably restrict the possession and use. 

-----

The NRA's grand conspiracy

Wayne LaPierre, the Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association told a CPAC gathering in Florida, “It’s all part of a massive conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intention to destroy the Second Amendment.”

LaPierre was talking about the Obama’s administration to take no steps to take guns away from the citizens of the United States. LaPierre thinks that Obama’s lack of action is part of a conspiracy. That his appearance of inaction is so he can say he is for gun rights, and convince voters that he is on their side.

During the last election it was feared that if elected, Obama would move to take guns from the “cold, dead hands” of true Americans, as the gun lobby followers like to say. When he took office, gun sales skyrocketed. People wanted to stock up so they would be weaponized when the black booted goons made guns illegal.

But, since the election, absolutely nothing has happen. Obama has not requested any legislation about outlawing guns. He has not given any policy speeches on how guns have made this society the most violent in history. After the slaughter in Tucson by Jared Lee Loughner, that killed 6 people and wounded another 14 including Representative Gabrielle Giffords, a perfect time to call for more gun control, nothing happen.

And, yet, LaPierre seems to think this is Obama’s grand conspiracy to remove guns from the homes of good, upstanding citizens.

LaPierre and the likes of him need a boogieman to stay alive. He needs to stir up some hate for the liberal press, the far left commie in the White House or whoever else LaPierre can point a finger at. Even if the people LaPierre points fingers at are people in position of power that have done nothing to endanger his beloved right to own guns.

We do have a right, of some kind, to bear arms. I do believe that those that signed the Constitution wanted to make sure that we could keep guns in our homes for our safety, for hunting and so that we may respond to a call to arms by our states in times of need. But, it can’t be argued that by guaranteeing the right to bear arms in the Constitution, the signers ever intended to stop congress from enacting any reasonable law about gun safety.

LaPierre would have you believing otherwise. He believes that any law that curtails the ownership or use of guns is unconstitutional. But, who would argue that crazy people, like Loughner, should be able to walk around with a gun strapped to their waist. Obama, instead of moving to place more control on people like him, has done nothing.

LaPierre, where is the grand conspiracy?

-----