Advertising should be protected speech.

in guns •  3 months ago 

1000046238.jpg

The recent lawsuits against gun manufacturers, which, by the way, makes it clear that the claim that PLACCA gives absolute immunity from lawsuits to gun manufacturers is another Democrat lie, have focused on advertising.

A lot of anti-tobacco ads have focused on advertising.

This is ridiculous.

First of all, I would argue that advertising should be protected speech, and the laws that we have in place restricting the advertising of guns and tobacco products should be deemed to be unconstitutional.

Still, aside from that, those laws are in place, and they're still going after these companies for advertising.

I've never been a smoker. But, I've worked at a CVS when they sold tobacco, and I've walked into a few convenience stores, which are basically the only places where tobacco companies are allowed to advertise. I've still never bought a pack of cigarettes. On top of the advertising restrictions, all tobacco products come with warning labels.

There's no evidence that any mass shooter even saw an ad from a gun manufacturer, much less that they were inspired by one. Gun manufacturers are effectively only allowed to run ads in print magazines. I'm thirty-nine, and I only get American Cinematographer in print. None of these twenty-year-old maniacs are getting print magazines, seeing an ad from Daniel Defense, and suddenly thinking, "Hey, I'm gonna shoot up a school."

This really has to stop. This all amounts to people shirking the concept of personal accountability. It's like people are taking the South Park episode Butt Out, wherein the boys lie about the tobacco companies brainwashing them into smoking, and taking it literally.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!